Bug 452739

Summary: yum prefers arch-specific package over rpm-newer noarch package on install
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Jarod Wilson <jarod>
Component: yumAssignee: James Antill <james.antill>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Jan Hutaƙ <jhutar>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.3CC: dwalluck, jhutar
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-20 16:44:47 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Description Jarod Wilson 2008-06-24 14:23:00 EDT
Description of problem:
On three different RHEL5.2 hosts now, I've seen yum prefer an arch-specific
package over an rpm-newer noarch package of the same name.

Details:

1) Freshly installed RHEL5.2 host, running yum-3.2.8-9.el5.
2) Never has had the package in question (mock) installed
3) mock 0.8.9-1.el5.x86_64 gets picked for install over mock 0.9.7-1.el5.noarch


How reproducible:
# rpm -ivh epel-release-5-3.noarch.rpm 
warning: epel-release-5-3.noarch.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID
217521f6
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:epel-release           ########################################### [100%]

# yum install mock
Loading "security" plugin
Loading "rhnplugin" plugin
This system is not registered with RHN.
RHN support will be disabled.
rhel5-Server              100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    00:00     
primary.xml.gz            100% |=========================| 992 kB    00:00     
rhel5-Serv: ################################################## 2944/2944
rhel5-VT                  100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    00:00     
primary.xml.gz            100% |=========================| 7.3 kB    00:00     
rhel5-VT  : ################################################## 35/35
Setting up Install Process
Parsing package install arguments
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mock.x86_64 0:0.8.9-1.el5 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Dependencies Resolved

=============================================================================
 Package                 Arch       Version          Repository        Size 
=============================================================================
Installing:
 mock                    x86_64     0.8.9-1.el5      epel               71 k

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================
Install      1 Package(s)         
Update       0 Package(s)         
Remove       0 Package(s)         

Total download size: 71 k
Is this ok [y/N]: N

# yum list mock
Loading "security" plugin
Loading "rhnplugin" plugin
This system is not registered with RHN.
RHN support will be disabled.
Available Packages
mock.x86_64                              0.8.9-1.el5            epel            
mock.noarch                              0.9.7-1.el5            epel 

So one can either let yum install 0.8.9, then do a 'yum upgrade mock', and you
wind up with the noarch one, or one can do a 'yum install mock.noarch' to get
the noarch one. Not a big deal, but certainly not the expected behavior.
Comment 1 James Antill 2008-06-24 15:38:18 EDT
 Interesting ... we've just seen and fixed this in Fedora 9, but that was/is due
to the recently introduced multilib_policy=best configuration option.
 I'm not sure how yum-3.2.8 gets into this problem ... if it's a similar problem
then yum update after the initial install of the older package will still work
... as will a "yum install mock.noarch".

 Either way this will get fixed when we update to the 3.2.17+ in RHEL-5.3, but I
can't imagine it getting fixed before that.
Comment 2 RHEL Product and Program Management 2008-06-24 16:03:53 EDT
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release.  Product Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed
products.  This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update
release.
Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2009-01-20 16:44:47 EST
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0176.html