Dependencies a little excessive?

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 20:59 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 14:56 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 14:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Thursday 10 August 2006 14:48, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > No, I don't like the behavior of installing both arches by default.
> > > 
> > > I don't personally either, but I have the capacity to fix that for my system.  
> > > I'm just repeating the reasoning that was given to me the last time I bitched 
> > > about it.
> > 
> > So everyone hates it? anyone in favor? 
> 
> We hate it :)
> 

okay - then here are a couple of more situations I want to make sure are
understood:

yum remove foo*

it should remove all packages starting with foo of EVERY arch or just of
the primary arch in the biarch set?

yum update foo*

ditto of above? What should it default to act on

b/c if:

yum install foo*

only installs the primary arch - not the secondary one - then we're
creating some expectation of it for the others.

consistency is a good thing, I think.

-sv