Bug 451915

Summary: Can't install multilib packages using GNOME PackageKit
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Alex W. Jackson <awj_in_japan>
Component: gnome-packagekitAssignee: Robin Norwood <robin.norwood>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 9CC: belegdol, richard
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-15 14:33:06 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 Alex W. Jackson 2008-06-18 04:16:42 UTC 
Description of problem:
It seems to be impossible to use the GNOME PackageKit client to install the i386
version of a multilib package whose x86_64 version is already installed.  It
displays an error dialog saying "This package could not be installed as it is
already installed".

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
gnome-packagekit-0.1.12-12.20080430.fc9

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Have, e.g., SDL.x86_64 installed, but not SDL.i386
2.Run GNOME PackageKit
3.Select i386 version of SDL from list of available packages
4.Click install

Actual results:
"This package could not be installed as it is already installed"

Expected results:
package installs

Additional info:
Dunno if the problem is with gnome-packagekit, or PackageKit itself, or even
further down the stack (yum?) as I can't be arsed to figure out pkcon
syntax--for now I've fallen back to manually downloading and installing using
rpm -i.
Comment 1 Richard Hughes 2008-06-23 10:15:46 UTC 
Sure, I've not got a multilib box here so I can't test this. Could you try
rebuilding PackageKit from rawhide and trying that? Thanks.
Comment 2 Julian Sikorski 2008-07-15 14:16:21 UTC 
This is probably a duplicate of #443143.
Comment 3 Alex W. Jackson 2008-07-15 14:33:06 UTC 
Yes, it is.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 443143 ***