Bug 958932
| Summary: | Errata install - package name sent to client is incorrect; therefore, not installed | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] Pulp | Reporter: | Brad Buckingham <bbuckingham> |
| Component: | consumers | Assignee: | Jeff Ortel <jortel> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Preethi Thomas <pthomas> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 2.1 Beta | CC: | jason.dobies, mmccune |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-05-08 21:20:00 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| 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: | 950743 | ||
|
Description
Brad Buckingham
2013-05-02 17:40:06 UTC
I synchronized this repository to look around. When looking at the errata inventoried in Pulp, I see:
[snip]
Description: Bird_Erratum
From Str: errata
Id: RHEA-2012:0003
Issued: 2012-02-29 11:01:11
Pkglist:
Name: 1
Packages:
Arch: noarch
Epoch: None
Filename: crow-0.8-1.noarch.rpm
Name: crow
Release: 1
Src: http://www.fedoraproject.org
Version: 0.8
[snip]
Looking at the updateinfo.xml itself:
<package arch="noarch" name="crow" release="1" src="http://www.fedoraproject.org" version="0.8">
<filename>crow-0.8-1.noarch.rpm</filename>
</package>
I'm pretty sure the issue is that the errata doesn't contain the epoch, so we can't include it in the errata metadata. I'd guess the assumption when writing this was that the errata was properly formatted, so there's no checks to indicate bad errata. We may want to look into that.
In the meantime, I'm not going to treat this as a 2.1.1 blocker under the rationale of bad repository. I'll leave it open to reconsider our assumptions about the data we're synccing.
we will take a look at RHEL updateinfo.xml to see if epoch is always included. It looks like for the RHEL repo that I am using (which includes ~1800 errata), all 7026 packages that they references, have an epoch. (For simplicity, I used the pulp-admin API to extract the data. :)) moved to sat6-pulp-future Since this can't be reproduced on a non-testing repo, I'm going to chalk it up to bad test data and close this out. We can reopen if it surfaces on a production repo. +1 to closing this out |