lm_sensors in FC4-updates for x86_64 twice?

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 05:33:16PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 22:53 +0100, Florian La Roche wrote:
> > > no, I don't want to hear any bitching and moaning about this, that's how
> > > it is.
> > 
> > At some point we should change this to only pull in as few packages as
> > really needed, but that also comes with quite some calculation cost.
> 
> why isn't the way it's currently being done correct? We've gone round
> and round on this and its always come down to how to handle globs of
> commands.

Sometimes less is more. Why should a system be polluted with i386
packages, if the user does not need them?

> > This should really be something where yum, up2date and smart algorithms
> > should work together and then implement the best solution available.
> 
> is up2date much of a concern anymore?

Is something scheduled as replacement for RHEL or XMLRPC? If there is
no XMLRPC support in any other depsolver up2date cannot die.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20051127/c01eb6d8/attachment-0002.bin