[Spacewalk-list] i386 vs. x86_64

[James Hogarth]

On 2 February 2010 17:06, Kennedy, Ryan <rkennedy at paml.com> wrote:
> I set up my channels to all use x86_64 and I have a system or two I kickstarted using those channels.  Initially it showed about 15 packages that needed updated and all of them were x86_64, but just the other day (seemingly out of the blue) that number more than doubled and now I am seeing both i386 and x86_64 versions listed as needing to be updated on the client.  I can see that my local satellite repo on my spacewalk server has both i386 and x86_64 versions of the packages in question which seems a bit odd considering my channels/repos are all set to x86_64 for architecture.  Can anyone set me straight on this?  It is puzzling to me why it would only show x86_64 packages in the updates for several weeks and then all of a sudden show i386 version of the same packages as well.
>
> --Ryan
>
> DISCLAIMER:
> Information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, be notified
> that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited. If this communication is received in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting
> from your computer. Thank you
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>

64bit Centos machines by default will have a selection of 32bit
packages as well (mostly libraries) for compatibility... depending on
your environment you may not need these. My systems, for example, just
have @base which includes a few i386 packages but specifically firefox
x86_64 from the mharris repo.... You will also find noarch for some
bits in your x86_64 channel.

James