Bug 456451

Summary: System->Software->List - incorrect package details displayed
Product: [Community] Spacewalk Reporter: Brad Buckingham <bbuckingham>
Component: ServerAssignee: Pradeep Kilambi <pkilambi>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Red Hat Satellite QA List <satqe-list>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 0.1CC: cperry
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: 2009-01-22 16:29:34 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 456552    

Description Brad Buckingham 2008-07-23 19:14:20 UTC 
Description of problem:

Listing packages (systems->system->software->packages->list):

Selecting a package from the package list associated with an x86_64 client
displays the details of an x86_64 package, even if the client has the i386
package installed. This is due to the fact that the package data in
rhnServerPackage for x86_64 clients does not have the package architecture
populated. 

From initial analysis, impact to backend is anticipated.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. select Systems
2. select an x86_64 system
3. select Software -> Packages -> List
4. select a Package from the list that you know is i386 on the client (e.g. libjpeg)
  
Actual results:
Package details displayed are for the x86_64 package.

Expected results:
Package details displayed should be for the i386 package that is actually installed.


Additional info:

https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/MultiArchEnhancements - Refer to wiki
page for more details on this issue. This page contains proposed solution;
however, since the solution details can change as the issue is further
investigated, it is not being included in the bug report.