Re: parted package on x86_64

[Curtis Doty <Curtis GreenKey net>]

Dec 13 James Wilkinson said:
> 
> As for why it's installed by default, yum will install both
> architectures unless you tell it otherwise, and the Fedora developers
> decided not to tell it otherwise. (This has been debated -- there were
> calls for a "32 bit compatibility" group when you're selecting packages
> to install, but it didn't make FC6).

Yes, I now keep a collection of specific -*.i386 lines in any x86_64 
kickstart files. Very ugly and annoying that I have to do this. :-(

> 
> > It renders rpm -V utterly useless due to extremely high 
> > noise to signal ratio.
> 
> Pipe it through fgrep -v .......T

Actually, I use rpm -V --nomtime, but my argument still stands. We are 
only sweeping the problem under the carpet by ignoring these poisoned 
attibutes. They were put into the rpm database for a reason.

> 
> > # rpm -V parted.i386 ; echo $?        
> > prelink: /sbin/parted: Could not find one of the dependencies
> > prelink: /sbin/parted: at least one of file's dependencies has changed 
> > since prelinking
> > S.?....T   /sbin/parted
> > prelink: /sbin/partprobe: Could not find one of the dependencies
> > prelink: /sbin/partprobe: at least one of file's dependencies has changed 
> > since prelinking
> > S.?....T   /sbin/partprobe
> > missing     /usr/share/doc/parted-1.8.0
> > missing   d /usr/share/doc/parted-1.8.0/API
> <snip>
> 
> And yes, that's the *really* annoying bug. It is known:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209306 

Which appears to be the result of some rather arbitrary fix much earlier: 
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/187308

> Hope this helps,
> 
> James.

Thanks for the feedback. I still have to wonder why the distro keepers and 
@redhats have done nothing for so long. The bz209306 was clearly 
identified as a showstopper, but apparently ignored.

../C