Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dependency solver of advanced copy workflow should not check host architecture #3395

Open
GeorgFleig opened this issue Jan 26, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@GeorgFleig
Copy link

Version

  • core: 3.43.1
  • rpm: 3.24.0
  • Running pulp in one container on an ARM system.

Describe the bug
The dependency solver of the advanced copy workflow erroneously checks the architecture of the RPM packages against the system architecture of the Pulp host. This check should not happen.

Trying to copy a noarch package with dependencies on a x86_64 package (dependency-lib) fails:

Problems Encountered:
=====================
nothing provides dependency-lib = 0:12.1.2-21 needed by mypackage:0.0.1.noarch

Packages transferred:
=====================

Even though the list of Packages transferred is empty, the requested package mypackage:0.0.1.noarch gets copied, not its dependencies though.

Trying to copy a x86_64 package (with or without dependencies):

Problems Encountered:
=====================
package foo-bar:14.12-2.x86_64 does not have a compatible architecture

Packages transferred:
=====================

Even though the list of Packages transferred is empty, the requested package foo-bar:14.12-2.x86_64 gets copied, not its dependencies though.

To Reproduce

  • run Pulp on ARM architecture and set up repo with x86_64 RPMs (the issue should arise as well when Pulp is run on x86_64 and you use ARM RPMs)
  • use advanced copy workflow to copy this RPM from one repo to another

Expected behavior
Dependency solver should not care about the hosts architecture at all.

Additional context

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants