On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 22:32 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 11.08.2008 22:17, Sebastian Vahl wrote: > > Am Montag, 11. August 2008 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis: > >> I pushed the packages that have been build over the past two weeks; > >> please check that everything is there in the way it is expected: > >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/8/ > >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/9/ > >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/ > > Many ppc64 rpms are located inside the normal ppc repository. And the ppc64 > > repository itself contains only one singel rpm. Is this indended? > > The first is afaik intended, as ppc64 just like x86_64 is > biarch/multilib arch; PPCs system will just ignore the ppc64 packages. > It's the same in Fedora; see > > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/ppc/ > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/9/Everything/ppc/os/Packages/ > > > The latter IMHO is not intended, but likely the way the push scripts > from Extras/EPEL work/are designed. Fedora at least ships the ppc64 rpms > in a dedicated repo as well: > > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/ppc64/ > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/9/Everything/ppc64/os/Packages/ > > dwmw2, mschwendt?
Yeah, we should have the 64-bit packages in the 64-bit repo, while it's correct for both sets of packages to be in the 32-bit repo. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation
