Ticket #52 (closed defect: fixed)
Dual arch support
| Reported by: | [email protected]… | Owned by: | desai |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | critical | Milestone: | |
| Component: | bcfg2-server | Version: | |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by desai) (diff)
In the infinite wisdom of RHEL, an x86_64 machine produces an interesting obstacle. As you could guess there are x86 and x86_64 versions of some software and libraries. Instead of making these mutually exclusive, RHEL has abused RPM further. Allow me to demonstrate:
[[email protected]:~]$ rpm -q e2fsprogs e2fsprogs-1.35-12.3.EL4 e2fsprogs-1.35-12.3.EL4
What you say? Your RPM db must be corrupted. Ah, but it isn't:
[[email protected]:~]$ rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}-%{ARCH}\n" e2fsprogs e2fsprogs-1.35-12.3.EL4-x86_64 e2fsprogs-1.35-12.3.EL4-i386
That's right. They've found a way to have RPMs with the same name only differing in the architecture. The RPMs don't have any overlap in what files they provide, though.
So here's what's needed. A way to flag an x86_64 package as dual arch so that Bcfg2 will know to install both the x86 and x86_64 package. Logic for Bcfg2 to determine whether or not a dual arch package is installed or not. And I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of. Until this functionality is there, bcfg2 can't be used to manage RHEL x86_64 based machines that's why I'm marking this critical.
