[Spacewalk-list] i386 vs. x86_64

[James Hogarth]

On 3 February 2010 19:10, Kennedy, Ryan <rkennedy at paml.com> wrote:
> I'm still a bit unclear on this.
> Here's an example...
> When I kickstarted my CentOS 5.4 x86_64 test box from Spacewalk it installed dbus-1.1.2-12.el5_4.1.x86_64 by default, but NOT the i386 version.  As I mentioned, it didn't show an available update for dbus for a few weeks (I already had this system managed and the channels configured and reposync'd when I kickstarted it).  Just a few days ago though it started listing a bunch of i386 updates along with the other 15 updates it had been showing for a couple of weeks.  The i386 version of dbus (dbus-1.1.2-12.el5_4.1.i386) is identical to the x86_64 version so I am confused as to why it didn't just install it when the system was kickstarted.  Is it possible that something I installed had an i386 lib as a dependency that triggered this?  I don't recall installing any packages specifically on that box, but that's not to say I didn't.  I just can't think of another logical explanation as to why all the i386 packages just started showing up for that system.
>
> Also... this isn't a library so I don't know why it would think it would need the non-64bit version of this package.  Puzzling.
>
> --Ryan
>

Look in your yum log for any package installations that might have
triggered it perhaps?

Might be an already installed package when updated had a dependency
that puled down the other bits.

I had that the other day and it was quite confusing initially when
java suddenly started responding with openjdk instead of Sun's
java.... turned out that ant used to have a jdk dependency but that
changed to openjdk specifically... so I had to work around that with
alternatives tec...

James