Comment 1 for bug 633691

Description of problem:
I noticed that after installing i?86 and x86_64 versions of a package and then removing the x86_64 version, the executables were missing. That's understandable: rpm removed the x86_64 executables and had no way to magically bring back the i?86 ones. But I think "rpm -V" on the i?86 package should then report the missing executables, since they are likely to break the functionality of the package. More generally, a replaced file should be reported as missing if the package that replaced it is no longer present.

This looks related to bug 171279.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.7.1-1.fc11.x86_64

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set up a little chroot containing /etc/rpm/platform set to x86_64-redhat-linux and the fedora-release-11-1.noarch package.
2. yum --installroot=/PATH/TO/root install openssl.i686 openssl.x86_64
3. rpm --root=/PATH/TO/root -e openssl.x86_64
4. ls -l /PATH/TO/root/usr/bin/openssl
5. rpm --root=/PATH/TO/root -V openssl.i686

Actual results:
Lots of ".......T." for the reason discussed in bug 171279, but nothing about /usr/bin/openssl .

Expected results:
missing /usr/bin/openssl