Bug 456451 - System->Software->List - incorrect package details displayed
System->Software->List - incorrect package details displayed
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Spacewalk
Classification: Community
Component: Server (Show other bugs)
0.1
All Linux
medium Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Pradeep Kilambi
Red Hat Satellite QA List
:
Depends On:
Blocks: space04
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-23 15:14 EDT by Brad Buckingham
Modified: 2009-01-22 11:29 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-22 11:29:34 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Brad Buckingham 2008-07-23 15:14:20 EDT
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.

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