[Spacewalk-list] CentOS 5.2 - a warning]

[John Hodrien]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, m.roth2006 at rcn.com wrote:

> Sorry, the kernel module may have been in there due to problems back when I
> created the repository with reposync. However, at an official mirror, there
> *are* serious i686 packages. See my response, below.

Yes there are i686 packages in the x86_64 repo, and yes there should be.

> I'm not sure I want to do that. The folks here want to use Spacewalk for
> possibly provisioning a number of systems at once, and to be able to select
> a number of identical ones, and say "uprade", not to have to issue custom
> commands for each system. Also, to me, that sort of defeats part of the
> point of Spacewalk.

I agree that it should work.

> Well,yes, they are. I know what the 686's are. The big thing was this: when
> they were in the Spacewalk repository, the query that Spacewalk did on its
> d/b got them uniquely. So when I told it to upgrade, it did it with those
> packages. Then, when I went to reboot, that failed coming back up, with the
> error "request_module: runaway loop modprobe binfmt-464c" repeated three or
> so times.

That's a bug in the multiarch handling of spacewalk then.

> <snip>
>>> On the other hand, when I click on a package name on the
>>> system->software->upgrade page, expecting the same info that I see
>>> system->software->going
>>> through channels->packages, I get a 500 error.
>
>> It's almost like the reported bug against 0.4.
>
> Kindly note that I said I was running 0.4.

Yep, I had noted that...  I really wouldn't run against 0.4 out of choice.  I
used 0.1/2/3/5.  0.4 was fun for testing.

>> Multiarch sucks (sometimes), but there really isn't anything >wrong with
>> our repositories regarding i686 packages (and >there is no i686 kernel in
>> the 5.2/5.3 repositories). >Luckily the original poster didn't look for
>> i386 packages <vbeg>.
>
> Wrong. At
> <http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/centos/5.2/updates/x86_64/RPMS/>, I find
> glibc-2.5-24.el5_2.2.i686.rpm (a real killer)
> openssl-0.9.8b-10.el5_2.1.i686.rpm
> xen-devel-3.0.3-64.el5_2.1.i686.rpm
> xen-libs-3.0.3-64.el5_2.1.i686.rpm
>
> And at <http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/centos/5.3/os/x86_64/CentOS/> is
> glibc-2.5-34.i686.rpm
> openssl-0.9.8e-7.el5.i686.rpm
>
> So, they really are in the repository, and incorrect.

No, you're not reading what either of us are writing.  There's nothing *wrong*
with those i686 packages being in the repo.  They're there deliberately.  They
should be there.  It is not some packaging bug you've spotted.

If spacewalk can't cope with this, and as a result removes and upgrades the
wrong packages, then spacewalk is broken.  File a bug.

jh

-- 
"Ten thousand women marched through the streets of London saying 'We will not
  be dictated to!' then went off to become stenographers."
                                                      -- G. K. Chesterton