On 2 February 2010 17:06, Kennedy, Ryan <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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 _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
