Heads up: NoArch Sub Packages Feature continues

[Florian Festi]

Seth Vidal wrote:
> Other people's noarch subpackages? Shouldn't they have obsoletes in 
> place, too?
> 
> I know it's hard to grok but for all intents and purposes a arch change 
> is A LOT like a package rename.

I like to disagree. I really see no reason why an obsolete should be needed 
here. Sure there is information loss when switching to noarch and back but 
an obsolete can't fix this.

I thought I had fixed the multilib behavior of yum some time ago especially 
for such arch changing cases and there should be test cases covering that. 
Looks like I need to have a look into it again.

Florian