Bug 192837

Summary:	yum ignores newer noarch packages when arch-specific package exists
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Shahms E. King <shahms>
Component:	yum	Assignee:	Jeremy Katz <katzj>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	5	CC:	katzj, pmatilai
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-05-24 05:36:18 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Shahms E. King 2006-05-23 15:07:54 UTC

Description of problem:
When doing a yum install or yum update newer noarch packages are ignored if an
arch-specific package exists in the repository. I'm filing against yum because
that's where I see the behavior, but it may be an rpm problem.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
yum-2.6.1-0.fc5 (though it happened in FC4 as well)

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum install python-reportlab
2. Watch as yum tries to install the FC3-era python-reportlab-1.19-1.i386
3.
  
Actual results:
yum attempts to install the older, but arch-specific package which fails as it
is an FC3 package which requires python 2.3.

Expected results:
yum installs the newer noarch pacakge

Additional info:
I think there may be a related bug in the scripts which manage the repository as
the offending package(s) shouldn't be in the FC4/FC5 repository at all as they
are un-rebuilt FC3 packages.

Comment 1 Seth Vidal 2006-05-24 05:15:01 UTC

ah ha. This is the part I didn't understand from the email thread. You're not
talking about for updates, you're talking about for a new install. In the case
of an update yum will dtrt when it comes to upgrading from i386->noarch and
vice-versa. But the install appears to be looking for the best arch first then
version of that one.

I'll look into this one, thanks.

Comment 2 Seth Vidal 2006-05-24 05:36:18 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 189998 ***

Comment 3 Seth Vidal 2006-05-24 05:38:00 UTC

Jeremy, could you go ahead and merge the patch - I'm pretty sure it solves the
problem for both these bugs.

thanks