Fighting the i386 plague

[Jesse Keating]

On Monday 22 January 2007 17:13, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> You seem to be missing the point.  Jonathan did not ask to
> "install gutentprint".  Look at this output:
>
>  gutenprint              i386       5.0.0-4.fc7      extras-development
>  2.7 M replacing  gimp-print-utils.x86_64 4.2.7-24.fc7
>
> and the same gimp-print-utils.x86_64 is "replaced" but x86_64 version
> of gutenprint too.
>
> In the past I was complaining about that behaviour and also did not
> get very far.  See
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199600
> I was told that this is a packaging bug and yum does what it is
> supposed to do.  I am still not convinced.  It is quite clear
> that while doing replacements yum has a full information about
> architectures involved.  If you indeed had installed
> gimp-print-utils.i386 too then gutenprint.i386 would show up
> in a transaction anyway.

You're referencing a different issue all together.

In the gutenprint case, the yum output may have been muddied a bit, it is 
entirely possible that the user had both x86_64 and i386 versions of 
gimp-print.  The replacement got attributed to the .x86_64 both times, which 
may not have been correct.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20070122/755dd3e9/attachment.sig>