[Spacewalk-list] Architecture question

[John Hodrien]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Martin Eggen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the Updates channel receive all updates packages. I used this layout mostly
> because it was suggested for the CentOS channels, and it also matches my yum
> repositories as created by mrepo. For some systems I want to be able to
> subscribe them just to a specific Base channel (RHEL 5.x) and then adding
> updates later as needed.
>
> I created one main configuration channel pr. OS (we have both RHEL and
> Solaris systems), and then some role/application specific channels. Make
> sure to rank the more specific configuration channels higher than the
> general channel (so any common configuration files will read the more
> specific version).

I could never quite decide the right/best way to lay out the channels.

This time I've gone with:

CentOS 6 (contains no packages)
   ------CentOS 6.0
   ------CentOS 6.0 updates
   ------CentOS 6.0 approved updates
   ------CentOS 6 internal packages

Then when 6.1 comes out, I can add a 6.1 child channel, test a new kickstart
against it (without disturbing the existing 6.0 kickstart).  I can test
updates to 6.1 without disturbing the existing 6.0 machines.  Moving from 6.0
to 6.1 doesn't affect the base channel subscription.  6.0 updates would be a
regularly repo-synced version of 6.0 updates, and 6.0 approved updates would
contain a subset of the updates channel.

jh