Bug 88623
Summary: | RFE: make rpm -Fvh consider %{arch}? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chris Ricker <chris.ricker> |
Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 5 | CC: | barryn, hans, jcaruso, kengert, mattdm, mitr, steven, sundaram, wtogami |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-10-24 10:14:05 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Chris Ricker
2003-04-11 15:40:40 UTC
If rpm DO also consider %{arch}, is that possible I can set the "arch" ? I have an i686 machine, but because I have to share its files (including glibc, openssl) to i386/i586 machines. Or how can I tell the installer to treat my i686 machine as i386 machine when I install the RH7/8/9/ ? Thanks. *** Bug 171743 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 176174 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Jeff, since I can't get you to recognize this as a high priority bug on RHEL4 rather than just an enhancement request for RH9, and since you keep pegging them to this ancient enhancement request with no comment at all: do you have any plans whatsoever to actually *fix* this issue? It's been sitting here ignored for nearly 3 years, and there's no indication that it won't just sit here for many more. Every time a new OS update comes out, I end up spending hours on multiple 64-bit systems working around RPM's failure to distinguish between architectures when freshening packages, going through the update list painstakingly to make sure I don't end up with a broken or nonfunctioning system when a 32-bit package erroneously replaces its installed 64-bit counterpart. I think it's obvious that that's a bug, and it doesn't seem like a very difficult bug to fix. *** Bug 193304 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Red Hat apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We do want to make sure that no important bugs slip through the cracks. Red Hat Linux 7.3 and Red Hat Linux 9 are no longer supported by Red Hat, Inc. They are maintained by the Fedora Legacy project (http://www.fedoralegacy.org/) for security updates only. If this is a security issue, please reassign to the 'Fedora Legacy' product in bugzilla. Please note that Legacy security update support for these products will stop on December 31st, 2006. If this is not a security issue, please check if this issue is still present in a current Fedora Core release. If so, please change the product and version to match, and check the box indicating that the requested information has been provided. If you are currently still running Red Hat Linux 7.3 or 9, please note that Fedora Legacy security update support for these products will stop on December 31st, 2006. You are strongly advised to upgrade to a current Fedora Core release or Red Hat Enterprise Linux or comparable. Some information on which option may be right for you is available at http://www.redhat.com/rhel/migrate/redhatlinux/. Any bug still open against Red Hat Linux 7.3 or 9 at the end of 2006 will be closed 'CANTFIX'. Again, if this bug still exists in a current release, or is a security issue, please change the product as necessary. We thank you for your help, and apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. Red Hat Linux 7.3 and Red Hat Linux 9 are no longer supported by Red Hat, Inc. f you are currently still running Red Hat Linux 7.3 or 9, you are strongly advised to upgrade to a current Fedora Core release or Red Hat Enterprise Linux or comparable. Some information on which option may be right for you is available at http://www.redhat.com/rhel/migrate/redhatlinux/. Closing as CANTFIX. I think CANTFIX is wrong. I'm reopening this bug. Although this original bug had been filed against older Red Hat Linux versions, the bug 193304 I had filed shows the issue is still present in Fedora Core 5, and unless somebody can give an indication that somebody has worked on it, I'm sure the bug is present in later versions of RPM, too. Please see bug 199304 for more details. I'm changing the product and version of this to Fedora Core 5, the version I had used in bug 193304. User pnasrat's account has been closed Reassigning to owner after bugzilla made a mess, sorry about the noise... Dupe of 171743 and FC5 is EOL... *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 171743 *** |