Comment 10 for bug 633691

(In reply to comment #7)
> Expecting verification of a elf32 package to detect damaged elf64
> content just doesn't make any sense at all.

Not flagging the elf32 content as replaced is based on the presumption that the elf64 content is better. If the elf64 content is damaged, that presumption doesn't hold. It's a stretch, but I think it's what users would want.

> For starters, the digests
> of the elf64 file content plain and simply are not present in the elf32
> package.

They're in the RPM database keyed to the path in question.