Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: > Blake Hudson wrote: >> >> >> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote the following on 2/13/2012 9:11 PM: >>> why do you think there's a problem? if you have an x86_64 system, you >>> are expected to use x86_64 perl, and that's what you have in the os >>> and updates dir for that arch, with the newer version in updates. Same >>> if you have an i386 system. Apparently centos extras provides the i386 >>> package for people who want that on an x86_64 system, although the >>> version provided is the older one. ... >> >>> The only possible "bug" is that extras could carry the latest i386 >>> package. >> >> I have dozens of x86_64 systems. On none of them did I manually install >> the i386 perl package. However, they all seem to have it installed. >> >> It seems that in many cases CentOS installs both an i386 and an x86_64 >> package when only the base package is requested, so I have thought >> nothing of it. install.log shows that the x86_64bit package was the only >> one initially installed, yum indicates that the i386 package was >> installed later (looks like during a yum update, possibly a dependency). >> >> Is this a past mistake in the repo that is only rearing its head when >> there is a mismatch between the x86_64 version in the update repo and >> the i386 version in the extra repo? Should there even exist a version in >> the extra repo? If so, it seems it should certainly be updated. > > yes it should be udpated. > I was just pointing out that the i386 version you have installed must > have come from extras, since your x86_64 system cannot see the i386 > versions available in the base+updates i386 repos that you showed in > your original post. It seemed you were wondering why these versions were > not being installed. BTW: why do you need 32bit perl? Since the package exists and you have it installed, I guess there must be use-cases... but perl being interpreted, I'm curious as to what they could be.