On 11/30/2012 03:40 PM, Tony Molloy wrote:
I might as well leave them there, disk space is cheap.
In case disk space is a problem, install hardlinkpy and run it on your
mirror directories.
I do that after each rsync.
Mogens
--
Mogens Kjaer, m...@lemo.dk
http://www.lemo.dk
Hi,
I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found
200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and
updates/6/Packages directories.
I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK
site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) and they both carried these
Tony Molloy wrote:
Hi,
I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found
200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and
updates/6/Packages directories.
I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK
site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) and they
From: Tony Molloy tony.mol...@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386
packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these
packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
___
CentOS
On Friday 30 November 2012 14:21:12 Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Tony Molloy wrote:
Hi,
I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I
found 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and
updates/6/Packages directories.
I checked with my rsync site (
From: Tony Molloy tony.mol...@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386
packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these
packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only
On 11/30/2012 09:13 AM, Mike Burger wrote:
From: Tony Molloy tony.mol...@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386
packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these
packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
True, but
Mike Burger wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:13:10 -0500 (EST):
True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in the 32bit
repo directories...they're not usually intermingled in the actual download
directories, last I checked.
How many dozens of years did you last check? ;-)
repo's
On 11/30/2012 09:13 AM, Mike Burger wrote:
From: Tony Molloy tony.mol...@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386
packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these
packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
True, but
9 matches
Mail list logo