[email protected] wrote: > >> Only report it if you're really really really sure you're not > >> wasting their time. I just don't see anything to backup your > >> claims of doom. 5.2 repos look a whole lot like 5.3 repos, and > >> look perfectly fine to me. > > >Multiarch sucks (sometimes), but there really isn't anything >wrong > >with our repositories regarding i686 packages (and >there is no i686 > >kernel in the 5.2/5.3 repositories). >Luckily the original poster > >didn't look for i386 packages <vbeg>. > > Wrong. At <http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/centos/5.2/updates/x86_64/RPMS/>,
Aha. > I find glibc-2.5-24.el5_2.2.i686.rpm (a real killer) Yes. Needed for multiarch compatibility - or how do you expect to run 32bit applications otherwise? > openssl-0.9.8b-10.el5_2.1.i686.rpm > xen-devel-3.0.3-64.el5_2.1.i686.rpm > xen-libs-3.0.3-64.el5_2.1.i686.rpm And where is the problem with that? > And at <http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/centos/5.3/os/x86_64/CentOS/> is > glibc-2.5-34.i686.rpm > openssl-0.9.8e-7.el5.i686.rpm > > So, they really are in the repository, and incorrect. No. They are *not* incorrect, but needed. As said: Look for i386 packages in there, too. There are *tons* of them. And they are there for a reason. And as I said: There is no i686 kernel in there - so I wonder why you tell me I am wrong. Ralph
pgphFTLfFfoqE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
