i386 packages installed for x86_64

[Richi Plana]

On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 06:05 -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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?

+1. Truth be told, some of the native x86_64 packages are questionable.
Adding their i386 equivalent just compounds to the problem 4-fold. This
has been discussed several times. I'm not sure what the near- and
long-term resolutions are for this issue, but it would be nice to get
something out there that we can refer future posts like this to.

Personally, I do a "yum remove *.i386" and let yum add the i386
libraries I need compatibility for (nspluginwrapper for flash and glibc
for my Brother printer's drivers). It's a waste of bandwidth,
electricity, time, etc. and I'm not sure what it serves to accomplish,
particularly since yum does automatic installations of i386 libs if
noobie user happens to install i386 apps via the user-friendly GUI.
--

Richi Plana