Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-12-01 Thread Mogens Kjaer
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

[CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Tony Molloy
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

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
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

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread John Doe
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

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Tony Molloy
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 (

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Mike Burger
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

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Johnny Hughes
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

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Kai Schaetzl
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

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Mike Burger
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