Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
For bugs related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 product line. The current stable release is 5.10. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and above, please visit Red Hat JIRA https://issues.redhat.com/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa?pid=12332745 to report new issues.

Bug 580973

Summary: rpm i386 on x86_64 kernel confused about arch
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Tom Marshall <tdm.rhbz>
Component: rpmAssignee: Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.5CC: ffesti
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-15 11:32:04 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Report kernel arch for ix86 rpm under x86_64 kernel none

Description Tom Marshall 2010-04-09 16:27:01 UTC 
Description of problem:

When running a 64-bit kernel under a 32-bit install, rpm may report either i386 or x86_64 as the build arch, depending on the specific CPU:


Intel Celeron family 15, model 2: build arch i386, install arch pentium4.

AMD Opteron family 15, model 37: build arch i386, install arch athlon.

Intel Xeon family 6, model 15: build arch x86_64, install arch x86_64.

AMD Opteron family 16, model 4: build arch i386, install arch athlon.


What is the intended behavior?
Comment 1 Tom Marshall 2010-08-06 19:42:23 UTC 
Created attachment 437247 [details]
Report kernel arch for ix86 rpm under x86_64 kernel
Comment 2 Florian Festi 2013-03-15 11:32:04 UTC 
Running 32bit userland with 64bit kernel is not a supported configuration for RHEL5. RPM still should handle the situation better. Moved the issue to the upstream bug tracker:
http://rpm.org/ticket/861

Thanks for reporting!