parted package on x86_64
Curtis Doty
Curtis at GreenKey.net
Sun Dec 31 02:35:51 UTC 2006
Dec 13 James Wilkinson said:
>
> As for why it's installed by default, yum will install both
> architectures unless you tell it otherwise, and the Fedora developers
> decided not to tell it otherwise. (This has been debated -- there were
> calls for a "32 bit compatibility" group when you're selecting packages
> to install, but it didn't make FC6).
Yes, I now keep a collection of specific -*.i386 lines in any x86_64
kickstart files. Very ugly and annoying that I have to do this. :-(
>
> > It renders rpm -V utterly useless due to extremely high
> > noise to signal ratio.
>
> Pipe it through fgrep -v .......T
Actually, I use rpm -V --nomtime, but my argument still stands. We are
only sweeping the problem under the carpet by ignoring these poisoned
attibutes. They were put into the rpm database for a reason.
>
> > # rpm -V parted.i386 ; echo $?
> > prelink: /sbin/parted: Could not find one of the dependencies
> > prelink: /sbin/parted: at least one of file's dependencies has changed
> > since prelinking
> > S.?....T /sbin/parted
> > prelink: /sbin/partprobe: Could not find one of the dependencies
> > prelink: /sbin/partprobe: at least one of file's dependencies has changed
> > since prelinking
> > S.?....T /sbin/partprobe
> > missing /usr/share/doc/parted-1.8.0
> > missing d /usr/share/doc/parted-1.8.0/API
> <snip>
>
> And yes, that's the *really* annoying bug. It is known:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209306
Which appears to be the result of some rather arbitrary fix much earlier:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/187308
> Hope this helps,
>
> James.
Thanks for the feedback. I still have to wonder why the distro keepers and
@redhats have done nothing for so long. The bz209306 was clearly
identified as a showstopper, but apparently ignored.
../C
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list