<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-NZ" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> When our Red Hat consultant explained it to us when they set up our Satellite for us, I believe we were told that the relationship was typically 1:1, although I suspect you could argue for-against it depending on your requirements.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you just want the latest at all times, then having one channel with multiple repositories might be a reasonable way to go. But if you have more of a staged environment and want to control how things get released into said environments, then channels give you more flexibility compared to repositories… particularly if the person managing the channel is not the same person as the person(s) using the channel.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Also, when advertising GPG information about a channel, there is only space for one such set of information; having multiple repositories would not be as tidy (multiple signatories), unless you were going to go and resign all of the packages in the repository…<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Managing satellite content requires discipline… this doesn’t usually go hand-in-hand with less work, but it does produce a more controlled product.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I think a 1:1 channel:repo relationship is generally more desirable for enterprise environments. For example, imagine you have a (roughly) singular channel, with multiple repositories for things like a) configuration management, b) virus scanning, c) hardware drivers. Now assume you want to update your virus scanning product. Now if you were to ‘yum update’, then you might get into bother and end up updating things you didn’t desire to update at that time (perhaps even necessitating a reboot).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> With a 1:1 channel:repo, then you would only need to clone (or work with differences) in a single channel/repo. Then anything (including devices that might have missed previous updates), can simply ‘yum update’, and be at the desired version of all components.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hope that helps,<o:p></o:p> Cameron<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> From: spacewalk-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:spacewalk-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ciro Iriarte Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 12:06 a.m. To: spacewalk-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Hardware Vendor Repos<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2012/12/10 Cameron Kerr <<a href="mailto:cameron.kerr@otago.ac.nz" target="_blank">cameron.kerr@otago.ac.nz</a>><o:p></o:p> <div> <div> <blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"> <div> <div> The non-rpm files will not pose a problem. I imported HPs repo a few says ago without problem. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> I would wonder though why you don't have more o a 1:1 repo:channel relationship, and then manage membership using the same methodology as with channels.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Hi, this wasn't clear for me, 1:1 repo/channel relationship is desired or not desired?<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> [snip]<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> -- Ciro Iriarte <a href="http://cyruspy.wordpress.com">http://cyruspy.wordpress.com</a> --<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>