On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Lampe > <lampe at gcsc.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote: >> Namely: >> >> * hivex >> * hivex-devel >> * librdmac >> * librdmac-devel >> * sanlock-libs >> * sanlock-devel See http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2012-0996.html for more info about sanlock . Looks like the do not have sanlock i386 in x86_64 tree anymore. >> >> and maybe others. >> >> Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the >> 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just >> the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the >> biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not >> 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it). > > FYI: > > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=5836 > > Akemi > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -Connie Sieh