|Summary:||yum repos don't point to ppc64 update/debuginfo files|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Frank Ch. Eigler <fche>|
|Component:||fedora-release||Assignee:||David Cantrell <dcantrell>|
|Status:||CLOSED DEFERRED||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-11-16 14:29:34 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Frank Ch. Eigler 2007-11-12 17:06:12 UTC
With a fedora8-equipped PS3, yum does not appear to see some ppc64 updates in yum check-update. It is as if the fedora-update*repo files refer to URLs that exclude some of the needed files. Specifically, kernel-debuginfo. Adding a new "ppc64"-flavoured, baseurl-only clause to the yum repo file, this works.
Comment 1 Jesse Keating 2007-11-15 19:56:15 UTC
This is going to be extremely difficult to resolve cleanly. David, I'm up for suggestions..
Comment 2 Frank Ch. Eigler 2007-11-16 12:49:17 UTC
Why can't the solution used for x86-64 work here? That is, having a combined ppc64/ppc updates/ directory?
Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2007-11-16 14:29:34 UTC
Because there is no kernel-debuginfo.i386 in the x86_64 repo, so it isn't actually fixed there. We may be able to fix it later with other multilib changes being discussed today. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/MultilibDraft
Comment 4 Frank Ch. Eigler 2007-11-16 15:30:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #3) > Because there is no kernel-debuginfo.i386 in the x86_64 repo, so it isn't > actually fixed there. But I'm not looking for the analogous kernel-debuginfo.ppc, just the .ppc64 - the same situation as for x86-64. > We may be able to fix it later with other multilib changes being discussed today. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/MultilibDraft OK, looking forward to it.
Comment 5 David Woodhouse 2007-11-16 15:42:21 UTC
No, kernel-debuginfo.ppc64 _is_ analogous to kernel-debuginfo.i386. On PPC64 we favour ppc32 packages and ppc64 is the 'secondary' architecture. On x86_64 we favour x86_64 packages and i386 is the 'secondary' architecture. One of Bill's improvements to the plan laid out in the multilib tracker bug (#235752) is the suggestion that x86_64 machines wishing to install i386 stuff could just use the _normal_ i386 repository, rather than having the packages appear in any x86_64-specific repository. If we make the tools cope with those extra packages properly (i.e. not _installing_ them all just because they're there), that seems like it would be the right thing to do. And would address this problem too. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=multilib