Kevin Gordon kgordon420 at
Tue Dec 28 13:13:46 EST 2010


Wasn't really complaining.  Just wanted upstream people to know in case they
were interested.

For clarity, The 686 8n-1 openssl gets installed on both the XO-1 and the
XO-1.5.  After a fresh install:

Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-1 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but
installs the 586 version
Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-2 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but
installs the 686 version

In our deployments we always try to do it in two steps, a yum update
download-only to an SD card, then yum localinstall from the card,  to save
internet usage.

In this two-step localinstall scenario, the XO-1 updated chosen (586)
actually refuses to update the installed older, but 686, version.

On the  XO 1.5, there is no issue - the 686 8n-2 updates the installed 686

Peter, absoulutely the right rpm switches can be used instead of yum to get
the desired one there when not doing a direct update. The other yum methods
are dangerous or ineffective since on the XO-1,a yum reinstall wont pick up
the original package, and a vanilla yum remove would delete about 3.5
million dependencies. That said, if I copy the 686 8n-2 rpm over to the XO-1
downloaded updates on the SD,  when doing the localinstall, it works fine.

So, I am not complaining, I was more or less curious as to why a 686 was in
there at all, since all the rest of the stuff int the package list seems to
be 586, and there is a 586 openssl available. Perhaps,  I too much love
simplicity :-)

But, in conclusion, I'm all good here.  If there is a specific bias for one
or the other (586 or 686) package, just let me know and I can make both the
XO-1 and the XO 1.5 happy with that version.

PS: Martin, we haven't deployed 852 in Kenya so I hadn't seen this before in
10.1.2.  We'll be upgrading them all from a mixed XO-1 set of 711 and 802;
and the 1.5's with 205/206 both of which never had the 686 installed.  So,
in preparation of when we go back in March, we're working with 10.1.3/3xx
assuming that it will be the new signed build generation.



On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Martin Langhoff
> <martin.langhoff at> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Kevin Gordon <kgordon420 at>
> wrote:
> >> Any reason that the openssl 0.9.8n-1.fc11 is of the 686 architecture as
> >> bundled in the os360 packages?  Causes a bit of grief on localinstalls
> and
> >
> > This was also on 10.1.2 as can be seen in the link below . The
> > compaints are bogus my understanding is that -- Fedora keeps its i686
> > builds compatible with Geode. Why is yum getting confused I dunno --
> > perhaps it's reading the kernel uname. On XO-1 builds, the kernel is
> > i586.
> >
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> I don't think the change to the rpm arch file that made geode i686
> capable was made until post F-11 (F-12 from mem) so I think you need
> to add a command to rpm to use the i686 version or install the
> i586/i386 variant.
> Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list