On 2016-05-30 14:50, Tomasz Gajc wrote:
Then this is a bug in urpmi which allows to install packages for
different arch than chroot arch.
It's a feature to some extent -- e.g. we WANT to be able to install
32-bit wine and 32-bit compat libs etc. from the i586 repositories on
x86_64 and compat libs from the armv7hl repositories on aarch64.
But urpmi should be smarter about installing something for the native
arch if it is available (and only look in 32-bit repos if nothing by the
same name is there).
Either way the out-of-sync versions should be fixed too.
ttyl
bero
2016-05-30 14:44 GMT+02:00 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[email protected]>:
Hi,
I just tried to set up a new cooker chroot -- oddly, I ended up with a
number of i586 packages (e.g. m4, clang) instead of their x86_64
equivalents.
Looks like urpmi unconditionally prefers the one with a newer
version/release combo, and somehow (mass build of anything that failed
on i586?) a few packages in the i586 tree seem to have newer release
numbers.
I think sooner or later we need to move to "if one architecture fails
unexpectedly, the build won't be published"...
ttyl
bero
_______________________________________________
OM-Cooker mailing list
[email protected]
http://ml.openmandriva.org/mailman/listinfo/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org
_______________________________________________
OM-Cooker mailing list
[email protected]
http://ml.openmandriva.org/mailman/listinfo/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org
_______________________________________________
OM-Cooker mailing list
[email protected]
http://ml.openmandriva.org/mailman/listinfo/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org
