i386 packages installed for x86_64

[David Woodhouse]

Please don't top-post. I've corrected it this time...

On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 00:49 -0200, Mauricio Pretto wrote:
> Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > Is it appropriate to file bugs for cases of (apparently unnecessary)
> > i386 packages that are installed by default as part of an x86_64
> > installation of Fedora 8?
> > 
> > If so, do these generally go against anaconda or the particular package?

The bug already exists, as one of the deps of the multilib tracker bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235756

> Most of these packages are installed for compatibility .

That makes no sense. RPM dependencies exist to ensure that we install
libraries as and when they're actually required. What on earth is the
point in installing these libraries in advance?

Should we unconditionally install every single available library package
for x86_64, and claim that it is "for compatibility"?

> Can you list the ones you think are unnecessary ?

All of them are unnecessary, except the ones which are directly pulled
in as dependencies for an i386.rpm which the user explicitly chooses to
install.

-- 
dwmw2