Bug 585176
| Summary: | RHNS 530 - RHNSet seems to filter packages when selected through SSM -> Upgrade | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Satellite 5 | Reporter: | Vishal Gaikwad <vgaikwad> | |
| Component: | WebUI | Assignee: | Justin Sherrill <jsherril> | |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Petr Sklenar <psklenar> | |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | high | |||
| Version: | 530 | CC: | cperry, psklenar, tao, xdmoon | |
| Target Milestone: | --- | |||
| Target Release: | --- | |||
| Hardware: | All | |||
| OS: | Linux | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 640596 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-06-22 14:04:44 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: | 518256, 640596 | |||
|
Description
Vishal Gaikwad
2010-04-23 11:17:26 UTC
Fixed in spacewalk master: 5e63202fa9be8adc5e54e1573384ff7a2050ef79 The logic was eliminating duplicate packages that had multiple versions selected (i.e. foo-1.1 & foo-1.2), but it wasn't taking arch into consideration. So this now takes it into consideration. Also discovered this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594455 test procedure: 1. On a RHEL 5 system install a multi-lib package (older version) 2. Select the System and click on Manage 3. From SSM select 'Upgrade' 4. Select the Upgradeable Packages (i386 and x86_64) 5. Click 'Upgrade Selected Packages' 6. Next Page only shows one of them, either i386/x86_64 but not both 7. Schedule the Upgrade OLD: reproduced, 7. only one of the package gets upgraded. NEW: works well 7. the both, i386 and x8664 are upgraded sat530+,rhel5@x8664 cobbler-1.6.6-8.el5sat.x86_64 spacewalk-java-0.5.44-78.el5sat.noarch spacewalk-base-0.5.23-35.el5sat.noarch --- Verified Hopefully fixed in spacewalk master:
1c1813066490c49155bcf319c0b3117ddf1ac98a
Sadly with this change, upgrading for multiple systems will cause that number of actions to be created. The schema limits package actions such that all systems act on all packages. So to make this work 'right' we need a schema change.
So with this change everythign should function correct, but if you have 2 systems, 2 different actions will be created (instead of 1 action with 2 systems).
:{
-Justin
test procedure with errata's packages: spacewalk-java-0.5.44-83
1. prepared environment:
satellite:
smqa-r210-05.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com
rhel55@sat530 upgraded from stage with errata's packages: spacewalk-java-0.5.44-83.el5sat
x86_64 clients:
client-1.brq.redhat.com - OLD libaio-0.3.106-3.2.i386 libaio-0.3.106-3.2.x86_64
client-2.brq.redhat.com - only OLD libaio-0.3.106-3.2.i386
client-3.brq.redhat.com - only OLD libaio-0.3.106-3.2.x86_64
client-4.brq.redhat.com - no libaio
2. then I add clients into SSM and hit upgrade.
3. webUI shows during upgrade:
client-1 libaio-0.3.106-5-i386
libaio-0.3.106-5-x86_64
client-2 libaio-0.3.106-5-i386
client-3 libaio-0.3.106-5-x86_64
4. rhn_check on each client and there is new version of libaio in right arch versions
[root@client-1 ~]# rpm -q libaio.i386 libaio.x86_64
libaio-0.3.106-5
libaio-0.3.106-5
[root@client-2 ~]# rpm -q libaio.i386 libaio.x86_64
libaio-0.3.106-5
package libaio.x86_64 is not installed
[root@client-3 ~]# rpm -q libaio.i386 libaio.x86_64
package libaio.i386 is not installed
libaio-0.3.106-5
[root@client-4 ~]# rpm -q libaio.i386 libaio.x86_64
package libaio.i386 is not installed
package libaio.x86_64 is not installed
---
Bug Verified
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0498.html |