[Spacewalk-list] CentOS 5.2 - a warning]

[Ralph Angenendt]

m.roth2006 at rcn.com 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/attachments/20090423/37f52dc6/attachment.sig>