Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 470538
Latest released hts package not available on RHN
Last modified: 2016-04-18 05:47:25 EDT
Description of problem:
Reference certification 444962
In attempting to certify a Lenovo system, I logged into RHN and selected the Hardware Certification Channel for RHEL5. I then selected x86_64 and was presented with the following package options:
dt-15.14-2.EL5.x86_64 Generic data test program
hts-5.0-31.noarch Red Hat Hardware Test Suite
hts-5.0-48.noarch Red Hat Hardware Test Suite
hts-5.1-18.el5.noarch Red Hat Hardware Test Suite
hts-5.2-16.el5.noarch Red Hat Hardware Test Suite
lmbench-3.0a7-5.EL5.x86_64 lmbench benchmark tools
lmbench-3.0a7-6.EL5.x86_64 lmbench benchmark tools
stress-0.18.8-1.3.EL5.x86_64 tool to impose stress on a
POSIX-compliant operating system
The defaults were:
I downloaded and installed these on the test system and ran the certification suite. When I attempted to submit it, I got an error that I'd used the wrong level of hts. I bypassed this by going to the bugzilla directly and appending the results rpm.
QinXie then commented:
The hts you used is hts-5.1-18, but what catalog wish is hts-5.2-xx. Could
you rerun the tests with hts-5.2-18? Or you have some reason, so that you
have to use hts-5.1-18?
I then tried a "yum update hts" and it reported the latest package was already installed. So I manually selected the hts-5.2-16.el5.noarch package on RHN, downloaded it and then did an "rpm -Uvh hts" which installed that package as an upgrade to the RHN default.
However, QinXie had requested hts-5.2-18. So I went into brewroot and downloaded hts-5.2-18.el5.noarch. I then did an "rpm -Uvh hts", reran the certification and posted the results.
Wrong package version installed. "yum update hts" did not correctly select
hts-5.2-16.el5.noarch (latest on RHN).
hts-5.2-16.el5.noarch package available on RHN and selected by default using
the yum command.
Hi Larry & Rob,
This should be not grouped as a cert, and seems it is not a hts issue or catalog issue, so I moved it here, group "Policy Guide".
This should be fixed, v7-1.1-24 is on RHN : http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0463.html