Bug 192837 - yum ignores newer noarch packages when arch-specific package exists
Summary: yum ignores newer noarch packages when arch-specific package exists
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 189998
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: yum
Version: 5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeremy Katz
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-05-23 15:07 UTC by Shahms E. King
Modified: 2014-01-21 22:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-05-24 05:36:18 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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



Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.