Hi,
what is the current recommended practice to upgrade x86_64 installations from rawhide?
I used to locally mirror the rawhide repository for my architecture and rpm --freshen my installation from it. Recently I have found that RPM does not take the architecture into account when determining whether a package shall be updated and either installs the x86_64 package when only the i386 variant was installed or fails to upgrade an installed package when there is a i386 RPM with the same name but unsatisfied dependencies. I have therefore created a problem report but that was declined: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=134171
Shall I reopen that bug? Do yum or up2date provide this kind of feature? How do I get them to use my local repository?
Tom
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 02:40 +0200, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
Hi,
what is the current recommended practice to upgrade x86_64 installations from rawhide?
I used to locally mirror the rawhide repository for my architecture and rpm --freshen my installation from it. Recently I have found that RPM does not take the architecture into account when determining whether a package shall be updated and either installs the x86_64 package when only the i386 variant was installed or fails to upgrade an installed package when there is a i386 RPM with the same name but unsatisfied dependencies. I have therefore created a problem report but that was declined: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=134171
Shall I reopen that bug? Do yum or up2date provide this kind of feature? How do I get them to use my local repository?
Both yum and up2date should handle multilib/biarch updates just fine.
-sv
-
seth vidal -
Thomas Zehetbauer