Bug 1418393
| Summary: | Certain ppc64le packages in RHSA-2016:0448 do not appear to be associated with this errata | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Rick Dixon <rdixon> |
| Component: | releng | Assignee: | John Francini <jfrancin> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Release Test Team <release-test-team-automation> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 7.2 | CC: | cdonnell, dgilmore, jfrancin, lkocman, rdixon, yundtj |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | ppc64le | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-04-28 14:50:39 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1420851 | ||
|
Description
Rick Dixon
2017-02-01 17:43:17 UTC
I just did, repush RHSA-2016:0448-07 advisory, if this won't help. We'll have to move it to content-delivery team. Moving to ON_QA. Lubos I just looked at the advisory just now, and all the packages for PPC64LE appear to be in place. Hello, Thank you, the advisory does appear to list the appropriate ppc64le packages now. However, I just resynced the repo and refreshed the metadata on my Satellite, and the ppc64le packages from this announcement are still not associated with this erratum ID: ~~~ foreman=# SELECT id,errata_id FROM katello_errata WHERE errata_id LIKE '%RHSA-2016:0448%'; id | errata_id -----+---------------- 964 | RHSA-2016:0448 (1 row) foreman=# select id,erratum_id,nvrea from katello_erratum_packages where erratum_id = '964'; id | erratum_id | nvrea -------+------------+---------------------------------------------- 16846 | 964 | libsmbclient-3.6.23-25.el6_7.i686 16848 | 964 | libsmbclient-3.6.23-25.el6_7.x86_64 5053 | 964 | libsmbclient-4.2.3-12.el7_2.i686 5049 | 964 | libsmbclient-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 5052 | 964 | libwbclient-4.2.3-12.el7_2.i686 5045 | 964 | libwbclient-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 16844 | 964 | samba-3.6.23-25.el6_7.x86_64 5040 | 964 | samba-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 16850 | 964 | samba-client-3.6.23-25.el6_7.x86_64 5057 | 964 | samba-client-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 5048 | 964 | samba-client-libs-4.2.3-12.el7_2.i686 5046 | 964 | samba-client-libs-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 16845 | 964 | samba-common-3.6.23-25.el6_7.i686 16852 | 964 | samba-common-3.6.23-25.el6_7.x86_64 5054 | 964 | samba-common-4.2.3-12.el7_2.noarch 5043 | 964 | samba-common-libs-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 5056 | 964 | samba-common-tools-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 5050 | 964 | samba-libs-4.2.3-12.el7_2.i686 5044 | 964 | samba-libs-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 5041 | 964 | samba-python-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 16851 | 964 | samba-winbind-3.6.23-25.el6_7.x86_64 5055 | 964 | samba-winbind-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 16847 | 964 | samba-winbind-clients-3.6.23-25.el6_7.i686 16849 | 964 | samba-winbind-clients-3.6.23-25.el6_7.x86_64 5051 | 964 | samba-winbind-clients-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 5042 | 964 | samba-winbind-modules-4.2.3-12.el7_2.i686 5047 | 964 | samba-winbind-modules-4.2.3-12.el7_2.x86_64 (27 rows) ~~~ The reason this is concerning is because it breaks content view filtering for ppc64le customers. For instance, if I wanted to create a content view comprised entirely of ppc64le repositories which excludes the following: - Any errata released after 2/15/2016 - Any packages associated with RHSA-2016:0448 At this time, *only* the samba-common.noarch package is effectively excluded from the content view with these filters in place. All ppc64le architecture packages slip through the filters and end up causing package dependency issues in later yum transactions. The current workaround is to set up an additional filter which specifically excludes individual ppc64le packages based on version number. This works, but doesn't address the underlying issue. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of any help in getting this resolved. Thank you kindly, Rick Updated and Re-opened the RCM Ticket to reflect that this issue is not resolved and needs to have the packages tied to the errata via the repodata. Continue to follow the RCM. |