A couple of 32-bit packages got no update in 6.3/x86_64
 

Namely:

* hivex
* hivex-devel
* librdmac
* librdmac-devel
* sanlock-libs
* sanlock-devel

and maybe others.

Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the
32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just
the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the
biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not
'plain', and no sensible man should be using it).

-Michael
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

A couple of 32-bit packages got no update in 6.3/x86_64
 

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Lampe
<lampe@gcsc.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
> Namely:
>
> * hivex
> * hivex-devel
> * librdmac
> * librdmac-devel
> * sanlock-libs
> * sanlock-devel
>
> and maybe others.
>
> Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the
> 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just
> the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the
> biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not
> 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it).

FYI:

http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=5836

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

A couple of 32-bit packages got no update in 6.3/x86_64
 

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Akemi Yagi wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Lampe
> <lampe@gcsc.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
>> Namely:
>>
>> * hivex
>> * hivex-devel
>> * librdmac
>> * librdmac-devel
>> * sanlock-libs
>> * sanlock-devel

See http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2012-0996.html for more info about
sanlock . Looks like the do not have sanlock i386 in x86_64 tree anymore.

>>
>> and maybe others.
>>
>> Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the
>> 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just
>> the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the
>> biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not
>> 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it).
>
> FYI:
>
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=5836
>
> Akemi
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

-Connie Sieh
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos