CentOS - Jul 2007 - Both archs version rpm are installed during update?

During last update packets pidgin and libpurple were updated while "yum
update"-ing

Is it a common and normal thing that both x86_64 and i386 arch rpms are
installed during update? This not the first time.


-- 
Cheers,
 Alexx                          mailto:alexx187 at gmail.com

Alexx wrote:
> During last update packets pidgin and libpurple were updated while
"yum
> update"-ing
> 
> Is it a common and normal thing that both x86_64 and i386 arch rpms are
> installed during update? This not the first time.
Sort of ...

If the i386 items were installed before, then yes, they will be updated.

The x86_64 tree has x86_64 and i386 rpms in it, this is by design (of
upstream).  I personally like the Debian approach for this (make them
totally separate distros and don't mix them).

There are some programs that are not available on x86_64 ... though in
CentOS-5 there are less of them.

Java and Flash plugins for mozilla/firefox are some.

You can add this to your .rpmmacros (create it if it does not exist in
your home directory):

%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}

Now you can use RPM to see which i[3,5,6]86 rpms are installed ... like
this:

rpm -qa | grep 'i[3,5,6]86'

If you have x86_64 rpms for all these, you can remove the i[3,5,6]86
versions if you want to.

The bottom line, you can have both without problem ... though I don't
normally do x86_64 on workstations.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070702/4c64b11c/attachment-0001.sig>

On 7/2/07, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
> You can add this to your .rpmmacros (create it if it does not exist in
> your home directory):
>
> %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
And if you want this to be systemwide, add the line to /etc/rpm/macros
(create it if it does not exist).

Akemi

I was interested to see that Firefox java and flash plugins aren't 
available in x86_64.
Does this explain why flash and/or java plugins aren't working on my 
Centos 5 x86_64 installation. If I go to (say) you-tube - it tells me I 
don't have the latest flash player - or don't have java enabled. If I 
follow their instructions on installing them - it tells me they are 
already installed.

Anyone else found this - and found a solution?

Thanks

Richard.



Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Alexx wrote:
>   
>> During last update packets pidgin and libpurple were updated while
"yum
>> update"-ing
>>
>> Is it a common and normal thing that both x86_64 and i386 arch rpms are
>> installed during update? This not the first time.
>>     
>
> Sort of ...
>
> If the i386 items were installed before, then yes, they will be updated.
>
> The x86_64 tree has x86_64 and i386 rpms in it, this is by design (of
> upstream).  I personally like the Debian approach for this (make them
> totally separate distros and don't mix them).
>
> There are some programs that are not available on x86_64 ... though in
> CentOS-5 there are less of them.
>
> Java and Flash plugins for mozilla/firefox are some.
>
> You can add this to your .rpmmacros (create it if it does not exist in
> your home directory):
>
> %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
>
> Now you can use RPM to see which i[3,5,6]86 rpms are installed ... like
> this:
>
> rpm -qa | grep 'i[3,5,6]86'
>
> If you have x86_64 rpms for all these, you can remove the i[3,5,6]86
> versions if you want to.
>
> The bottom line, you can have both without problem ... though I don't
> normally do x86_64 on workstations.
>
> Thanks,
> Johnny Hughes
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>