[CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Tony Molloy
Hi, I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and updates/6/Packages directories. I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) and they both carried these pack

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
Tony Molloy wrote: > > Hi, > > I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found > 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and > updates/6/Packages directories. > > I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK > site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) a

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread John Doe
From: Tony Molloy > Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 > packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these > packages. You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64. JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@c

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Tony Molloy
On Friday 30 November 2012 14:21:12 Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: > Tony Molloy wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I > > found 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and > > updates/6/Packages directories. > > > > I checked with my rsync sit

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Mike Burger
> From: Tony Molloy > >> Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 >> packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these >> packages. > > You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64. > > JD True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in t

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Johnny Hughes
On 11/30/2012 09:13 AM, Mike Burger wrote: >> From: Tony Molloy >> >>> Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 >>> packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these >>> packages. >> You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64. >> >> JD > True, but i386/

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Mike Burger wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:13:10 -0500 (EST): > True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in the 32bit > repo directories...they're not usually intermingled in the actual download > directories, last I checked. How many dozens of years did you "last check"? ;-) rep

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-11-30 Thread Mike Burger
> On 11/30/2012 09:13 AM, Mike Burger wrote: >>> From: Tony Molloy >>> Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages. >>> You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64. >>> >>> JD >> True

Re: [CentOS] Possible repo polllution

2012-12-01 Thread Mogens Kjaer
On 11/30/2012 03:40 PM, Tony Molloy wrote: > I might as well leave them there, disk space is cheap. In case disk space is a problem, install hardlinkpy and run it on your mirror directories. I do that after each rsync. Mogens -- Mogens Kjaer, m...@lemo.dk http://www.lemo.dk ___