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/...
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/...
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
David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com Intel Corporation