Bug 448470

Summary: yum proxy setting incorrectly documented
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Ben.Stanley
Component: yumAssignee: James Antill <james.antill>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact:
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.1   
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-03-25 01:41:29 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Description Ben.Stanley 2008-05-27 02:49:45 EDT
Description of problem:
When attempting to configure yum to access the internet via a proxy,
by setting the variables (in accordance with the limited documentation in man
yum.conf and 
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/yum/sn-yum-proxy-server.html)
in the /etc/yum.conf file, 

proxy=http://proxy.server:port
proxy_username=username
proxy_password=password

I get a confusing error message:

[root@tacat etc]# yum update
Loading "changelog" plugin
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Loading "security" plugin
Loading "rhnplugin" plugin
Loading "protectbase" plugin
Setting up Update Process
Setting up repositories
Could not retrieve mirrorlist http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el5/en/mirrors-rpmforge
error was
[Errno 4] IOError: <urlopen error nonnumeric port: '8080?'>
Error: Cannot find a valid baseurl for repo: rpmforge

To make the error message go away, simply append a '/' to the end of the proxy
setting. However, the '/' is not shown in any documentation.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
yum-3.0.1-5.el5

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Configure yum.conf as described above, with no '/' on the end of the proxy
setting.
2. yum update
  
Actual results:
[Errno 4] IOError: <urlopen error nonnumeric port: '8080?'>


Expected results:
successful update

Additional info:
If this is the correct behaviour, please update the documentation.
Otherwise, fix it to correctly parse the port number!
Comment 1 James Antill 2009-03-25 01:41:29 EDT
 I'm pretty sure we fixed this by 3.2.8 or maybe 3.2.19