Bug 241851 - both arches (i386 and x86_64) of the same packages are installed by default
Summary: both arches (i386 and x86_64) of the same packages are installed by default
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: anaconda
Version: 5.0
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
high
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Anaconda Maintenance Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-05-31 06:42 UTC by Vasiliy Kotikov
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:07 UTC (History)
0 users

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2007-05-31 13:23:40 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Installation log (35.38 KB, application/octet-stream)
2007-05-31 06:42 UTC, Vasiliy Kotikov
no flags Details

Description Vasiliy Kotikov 2007-05-31 06:42:14 UTC
Description of problem:
Installation of the RHEL 5 Server x86_64 installs by default rpm packages of two
archs:i386 and x86_64.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
example:
Installing glibc - 2.5-12.i686
Installing glibc - 2.5-12.x86_64
...
Installing gtk2 - 2.10.4-16.el5.i386
Installing gtk2 - 2.10.4-16.el5.x86_64

How reproducible:
Default installation without package customization.
  
Actual results:
two archs are installed

Expected results:
proper (one) arch of a package should be installed ?

Comment 1 Vasiliy Kotikov 2007-05-31 06:42:14 UTC
Created attachment 155782 [details]
Installation log

Comment 2 Jeremy Katz 2007-05-31 13:23:40 UTC
This is intentional; one of the major features of the x86_64 arch over other
64bit architectures is that you have full compatibility with x86.  We're just
enabling that support

Comment 3 Vasiliy Kotikov 2007-06-03 13:43:49 UTC
But how packages like this is installed?
Both packages esound-0.2.36-3.i386.rpm & esound-0.2.36-3.x86_64.rpm have
/usr/bin directory.
I have extrated rpms:
for i386
/esound/i386/usr/bin > ls -Al
total 116
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 43212 Jul 28  2006 esd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  4860 Jul 28  2006 esdcat
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  9924 Jul 28  2006 esdctl
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  2019 Jul 28  2006 esddsp
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  5300 Jul 28  2006 esdfilt
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  5776 Jul 28  2006 esdloop
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  4728 Jul 28  2006 esdmon
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  4444 Jul 28  2006 esdplay
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  4840 Jul 28  2006 esdrec
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  7260 Jul 28  2006 esdsample

and for x86_64
/esound/x86_64/usr/bin > ls -Al
total 120
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 44760 Jul 28  2006 esd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  6728 Jul 28  2006 esdcat
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11440 Jul 28  2006 esdctl
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  2019 Jul 28  2006 esddsp
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  6784 Jul 28  2006 esdfilt
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  7304 Jul 28  2006 esdloop
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  6728 Jul 28  2006 esdmon
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  6712 Jul 28  2006 esdplay
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  6728 Jul 28  2006 esdrec
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  8928 Jul 28  2006 esdsample

But the binary file as installed in the system:
ls -Al /usr/bin/es*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  1271 Nov 29  2006 /usr/bin/esc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  9512 Oct  2  2006 /usr/bin/escp2topbm
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 51496 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10416 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdcat
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15488 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdctl
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  2019 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esddsp
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10384 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdfilt
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11080 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdloop
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10080 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdmon
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10136 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdplay
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10472 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdrec
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12776 Jul 28  2006 /usr/bin/esdsample

So as I see 3 files have different sizes. Which one the <esd> files was
installed and why the size of the package installed on x86_64 system has another
size?

Thank You


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.