[rhelv6-list] question about firefox 32- vs. 64-bit RPMs in rhel-6-server-rpms and rhel-6-server-optional-rpms repos

Horst Severini hs at nhn.ou.edu
Thu Nov 8 15:57:11 UTC 2018


Thanks Marco!

I just looked at the archive, and there is a reply from solarflow99 las 
Friday, which I for some reason never got!

 > in the yum repo file it usually has a $basearch in the URL

Yes, I see that in all the URLs in /etc/yum.repos.d/redhat.repo, but 
it's not clear to me where/how that is set. It's presumably set to 
x86_64, though, since these are all 64-bit servers:

[hs at ouhep5 ~]$ uname -a
Linux ouhep5.nhn.ou.edu 2.6.32-754.6.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Sep 18 
10:29:08 EDT 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[hs at ouhep5 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.10 (Santiago)

But in a 64-bit server, there are plenty of 32-bit RPMs -- which are of 
course necessary -- and firefox is one of the ones which come in both 
flavors, so I'm not sure why the rhel-6-server-rpms repo only contains 
the 64-bit version (plus a really old 32-bit version), while the 
rhel-6-server-optional-rpms repo only contains the 32-bit version. That 
seems like an oversight.

Who is in charge of these repos? I would think that firefox should be in 
one or the other, but not both -- and particularly not different flavors 
in each?

Thanks a lot,

	Horst

On 11/8/18 9:22 AM, Marco Shaw wrote:
> Received.  Archives here:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv6-list/
> 
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:59 AM Horst Severini <hs at nhn.ou.edu 
> <mailto:hs at nhn.ou.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi again,
> 
>     I never received any response to this email. Are my emails going
>     through
>     to the list at all? I never even got my own email back.
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>              Horst
> 
>     On 10/31/18 7:47 PM, Horst Severini wrote:
>      > Hi all,
>      >
>      > we noticed that on our 64-bit RHEL6 Server nodes, whenever there's
>      > a firefox update, the 64-bit firefox RPM is being replaced with an
>      > updated 32-bit RPM. I dug a little deeper, and I think the issue
>      > might be that while there are both 32- and 64-bit versions
>      > in the rhel-6-server-rpms repo, only the 32-bit version is
>      > in the rhel-6-server-optional-rpms.
>      >
>      > At least that's what I gather from the output of 'yum list firefox':
>      >
>      > Installed Packages
>      > firefox.x86_64             60.3.0-1.el6             
>     @rhel-6-server-rpms
>      > Available Packages
>      > firefox.i686               60.3.0-1.el6             
>     rhel-6-server-optional-rpms
>      >
>      > Actually, it's even weirder than that. If I uninstall firefox,
>      > then I get this:
>      >
>      > yum --disablerepo=rhel-6-server-optional-rpms list firefox
>      >
>      > Available Packages
>      > firefox.i686                   31.1.0-5.el6_5               
>       rhel-6-server-rpms
>      > firefox.x86_64                 60.3.0-1.el6                 
>       rhel-6-server-rpms
>      >
>      > yum --disablerepo=rhel-6-server-rpms list firefox
>      >
>      > Available Packages
>      > firefox.i686              60.3.0-1.el6             
>       rhel-6-server-optional-rpms
>      >
>      > Is there a reason for that? I would've expected that either both
>     of them
>      > should be provided by and updated in the same repo, or there
>     should only
>      > be a 64-bit version at all, like there is for thunderbird:
>      >
>      > yum list thunderbird
>      >
>      > Available Packages
>      > thunderbird.x86_64           52.9.1-1.el6           
>     rhel-6-server-optional-rpms
>      >
>      > Is there a way to fix this in the repos? If not, what would be
>     the easiest
>      > way to fix it on the client side? I suppose I could add some
>     'exclude=firefox'
>      > statement to the [rhel-6-server-optional-rpms] section in
>      > /etc/yum.repos.d/redhat.repo, but I was hoping I didn't have to
>     resort
>      > to a hack like that.
>      >
>      > Or are there other yum priority tweaks that could address this?
>      >
>      > The weird thing is that during a fresh install, it picks the
>     64-bit version,
>      > so I'm not sure why an updated 'favors' the 32-bit version. Maybe
>      > rhel-6-server-optional-rpms is updated before rhel-6-server-rpms,
>      > and therefore the 'yum update' can only find the updated 32-bit
>     version,
>      > and therefore chooses that one?
>      >
>      > Thanks a lot,
>      >
>      >       Horst
>      >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     rhelv6-list mailing list
>     rhelv6-list at redhat.com <mailto:rhelv6-list at redhat.com>
>     https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rhelv6-list mailing list
> rhelv6-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
> 




More information about the rhelv6-list mailing list