[Spacewalk-list] Can't register a client with spacewalk 1.0

[Justin Sherrill]

On 5/5/10 9:18 AM, Gintaras wrote:
> Thanks, registration is working after the patch, but scheduled updates
> still fails with 1.0.0 client:
> 
> 'Fatal error in Python code occured [[6]]'
> 
> On the Client in up2date.log:
> 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/sbin/rhn_check", line 283, in __run_action
>     (status, message, data) = CheckCli.__do_call(method, params)
>   File "/usr/sbin/rhn_check", line 275, in __do_call
>     method = getMethod.getMethod(method, "/usr/share/rhn/", "actions")
>   File "/usr/share/rhn/up2date_client/getMethod.py", line 78, in getMethod
>     actions = __import__(modulename)
>   File "/usr/share/rhn/actions/packages.py", line 266, in ?
>     yum_base = YumAction()
>   File "/usr/share/rhn/actions/packages.py", line 62, in __init__
>     self.doConfigSetup(debuglevel=rhncli.cfg["debug"])
> exceptions.AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'cfg'

This should hopefully be fixed very soon as well:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589120


> 
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589100
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:03:49PM +0200, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 01:29:34PM +0200, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 12:38:12PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did that change after talking to Mirek who (IIRC) did the bump to 2
>>>>>> and change of the parameters type from list to hash as part of the
>>>>>> "rpm installation date" feature. We primarily did that for Fedoras,
>>>>>> but the worst thing which should have happened is that the
>>>>>> installation dates would not show up on the server.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Based on that capability is sent either list or dictionary. So
>>>>> worst thing which can happend is blow up of traceback due
>>>>> incompatible data structure, which is afaik happening right now.
>>>>
>>>> Alright. Why doesn't Spacewalk 1.0 handle the list?
>>>
>>> It seems the server compares the client capabilities to the type of
>>> the data sent, and that causes the mismatch.
>>>
>>> I've now filed
>>>
>>>       https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589100
>>>
>>> for the issue.
>>
>> To address the issue on your client installation, please apply patch
>>
>> --- /usr/share/rhn/up2date_client/rhnreg.py.orig        2010-04-08 11:37:25.000000000 +0200
>> +++ /usr/share/rhn/up2date_client/rhnreg.py     2010-05-05 14:05:05.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@
>>
>>  def sendPackages(systemId, packageList):
>>     s = rhnserver.RhnServer()
>> -    if not cfg['supportsExtendedPackageProfile'] == 2:
>> +    if not s.capabilities.hasCapability('xmlrpc.packages.extended_profile', 2):
>>         # for older satellites and hosted - convert to old format
>>         packageList = convertPackagesFromHashToList(packageList)
>>     s.registration.add_packages(systemId, packageList)
>>
>> It's been also pushed to Spacewalk master as
>>
>> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=spacewalk.git;a=commitdiff;h=db3f1bd553304d4589d54d9d6ce6e45ef9d3915a
>>
>> I shall try to get updated package to Spacewalk client repo soon.
>>
>> I'm sorry for the problems caused.
>>
>> --
>> Jan Pazdziora
>> Principal Software Engineer, Satellite Engineering, Red Hat
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spacewalk-list mailing list
>> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list


-- 
Justin Sherrill, RHCA          1801 Varsity Drive.
Software Engineer                Raleigh, NC 27603
Red Hat, Inc.