I was waiting for the aha... but if the RPM's are uninstalled will the envpath be updated to remove 32 bit (if it actually matters)?
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Douglas Hubler <dhub...@ezuce.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) > <mkitchin.pub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [r...@sipx-4-2-0 ~]# yum list installed |grep "java" > > java-1.6.0-sun.x86_64 1.6.0.14-1jpp > > installed > > java-1.6.0-sun-fonts.x86_64 1.6.0.14-1jpp > > installed > > > > > > [r...@sipx-4-2-1 test]# yum list installed |grep "java" > > java-1.6.0-sun.i586 1.6.0.19-1.2 > > installed > > java-1.6.0-sun.x86_64 1.6.0.19-1.2 > > installed > > java-1.6.0-sun-devel.x86_64 1.6.0.19-1.2 > > installed > > java-1.6.0-sun-fonts.i586 1.6.0.19-1.2 > > installedjava-1.6.0-sun.i586 > > java-1.6.0-sun-fonts.x86_64 1.6.0.19-1.2 > > installed > > Ah ha, > > rpm -e java-1.6.0-sun.i586 java-1.6.0-sun-fonts.i586 > > So the 32 and 64 rpm rpms are in one repo and normally the OS does the > right thing but i have seen 32 bit rpms get installed on 64 bit > before. Normally harmless, but not in this case. > > I'll create a ticket to separate the 32 and 64 rpms. > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
