Description of problem: I have trouble seeing what i586 versions of systemd-devel my mirror (I used MirrorList to add medias) has and the output of urpmq -i systemd-devel only shows x86_64 versions. [kristoffer@localhost Spec-filer]$ urpmq -i systemd-devel http://ftp.acc.umu.se/mirror/mageia/distrib/8/x86_64/media/core/release/media_info/20210224-165404-info.xml.lzma http://ftp.acc.umu.se/mirror/mageia/distrib/8/x86_64/media/core/updates/media_info/20220312-024259-info.xml.lzma Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.9 Release : 5.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 133420 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.9-5.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.10 Release : 1.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 133420 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.10-1.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.11 Release : 1.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 133420 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.11-1.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.13 Release : 1.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 133420 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.13-1.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.13 Release : 2.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 133420 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.13-2.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.15 Release : 1.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 136199 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.15-1.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.16 Release : 1.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 136199 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.16-1.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. Name : systemd-devel Version : 246.16 Release : 2.mga8 Group : Development/C Size : 136199 Architecture: x86_64 Source RPM : systemd-246.16-2.mga8.src.rpm URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Summary : Systemd development files Description : This package provides the development files for systemd. To show that I have checked to use i586 medias in edit-urpm-sources.pl here's the output of urpmq --list-media active: [kristoffer@localhost ~]$ urpmq --list-media active Core Release (distrib1) Core Release Debug (distrib2) Core Updates (distrib3) Core Updates Debug (distrib4) Nonfree Release (distrib11) Nonfree Release Debug (distrib12) Nonfree Updates (distrib13) Nonfree Updates Debug (distrib14) Core 32bit Release (distrib31) Core 32bit Updates (distrib32) Nonfree 32bit Release (distrib36) Nonfree 32bit Updates (distrib37) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 8.125-1 How reproducible: Everytime I use urpmq -i systemd-devel Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open gnome-terminal. 2. Type urpmq -i systemd-devel 3. See the list of x86_64 packages, but no i586 for the same package.
Created attachment 13175 [details] Picture proof Here you can see that rpmdrake won't show the i586 version either. NONE of them are presented.
CC: (none) => lovaren
(In reply to Kristoffer Grundström from comment #1) > Created attachment 13175 [details] > Picture proof > > Here you can see that rpmdrake won't show the i586 version either. > NONE of them are presented. If you uninstall the x86_64 version, the i586 version will show up in MCC. This is the case for ALL packages. If you have one architecture installed, you can't see any other architecture.
(In reply to sturmvogel from comment #2) > If you have one architecture installed, you can't see any other architecture. As long as the package doesn't have another name for different architectures as it is the case with lib and lib64 packages as example.
Additionally, you got already the answer how to properly search for packages in the discuss ML: https://ml.mageia.org/l/arc/discuss/2022-03/msg00005.html Use urpmq --ignorearch -f systemd-devel or urpmq --ignorearch -i systemd-devel
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDResolution: (none) => INVALID
Also the manpages are a good point to start if not all options for a command are known: $ man urpmq
Created attachment 13176 [details] It works for me (In reply to Kristoffer Grundström from comment #1) > Created attachment 13175 [details] > Picture proof > > Here you can see that rpmdrake won't show the i586 version either. > NONE of them are presented. I think you don't configure the metada policy in drakrpm-editmedia As you can see works for me
@katnatek This is not related to any metadata policy. See comment 2. If you want to test this, install systemd-devel for x86_64 and you will notice that i586 dissappears (and vice versa). Thats completely normal as written in comment 2 and comment 3. And as you can see in comment 1 , Kristoffer has the x86_64 version installed so he can't see i586 in MCC.
(In reply to sturmvogel from comment #7) > @katnatek This is not related to any metadata policy. See comment 2. If you > want to test this, install systemd-devel for x86_64 and you will notice that > i586 dissappears (and vice versa). Thats completely normal as written in > comment 2 and comment 3. > > And as you can see in comment 1 , Kristoffer has the x86_64 version > installed so he can't see i586 in MCC. Tested and confirmed but i think is a few against the purpose of set ALL(type of packages) and ALL(status of packages) in filters, its good to know anyway.
IT works as designed, but is confusing as it does not tell that it hides what you are looking for, even when user explicitly search for a package.
CC: (none) => fri