|Summary:||[Sat6.4] Sorting of available minor version repositories is not consistent on new Red Hat Repositories page|
|Product:||Red Hat Satellite||Reporter:||Ashish Humbe <ahumbe>|
|Component:||Repositories||Assignee:||Michael Johnson <micjohns>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Stephen Wadeley <swadeley>|
|Version:||6.4||CC:||cdonnell, jalviso, jturel, micjohns, pcreech, rjerrido, swadeley, walden|
|Target Milestone:||6.4.0||Keywords:||PrioBumpGSS, PrioBumpPM, Triaged, UserExperience|
|Fixed In Version:||tfm-rubygem-katello-22.214.171.124-1||Doc Type:||If docs needed, set a value|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2018-10-16 19:32:29 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Ashish Humbe 2018-07-24 19:12:20 UTC
Description of problem: Sorting of available minor version repos is not consistent. Example: When we look for "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Server (RPMs)" repos we see "x86_64 7Server" as a first entry. Whereas when we look for "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Server (RPMs)" repos then we see "x86_64 6Server" as the last entry and the sorting is like: i386 6.1 x86_64 6.1 x86_64 6.10 <<<< After 6.1 we should see 6.2 instead of 6.10 i386 6.10 i386 6.2 x86_64 6.2 i386 6.3 ... ... ... x86_64 6Server i386 6Server 6Server or 7Server are base repositories and these are most commonly used repos so those should be listed as a first entry.
Comment 2 jalviso 2018-07-31 05:27:51 UTC
In this example, 7Server is listed at the top but the sorting is still disordered: Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform 7.0 director for RHEL 7 (RPMs) rhel-7-server-openstack-7.0-director-rpms x86_64 7Server x86_64 7.2 x86_64 7.3 x86_64 7.0 x86_64 7.1 x86_64 7.4 x86_64 7.5
Comment 9 Walden Raines 2018-08-22 08:35:11 UTC
Created redmine issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/24679 from this bug
Comment 12 email@example.com 2018-09-20 16:04:37 UTC
Moving this bug to POST for triage into Satellite 6 since the upstream issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/24679 has been resolved.
Comment 13 Patrick Creech 2018-09-21 01:30:30 UTC
Michael, This failed cherrypick downstream. Can you take a look?
Comment 14 Jonathon Turel 2018-09-21 14:27:05 UTC
Hello Ashish, Here's what you can expect from the sorting now: repositories will be sorted in descending order, grouped by architecture. Also, any non y-stream repo (ie 7Server) will be moved to the top as we want to encourage use of those rather than y-stream repositories. Something like this: x86_64 6Server i386 6Server x86_64 6.10 x86_64 6.9 .... i386 6.10 i386 6.9
Comment 15 Ashish Humbe 2018-09-21 17:37:34 UTC
Thank you Johathon for the update and considering this for GA.
Comment 17 Patrick Creech 2018-09-24 14:45:30 UTC
snap 23, not 63
Comment 20 Bryan Kearney 2018-10-16 19:32:29 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2927