[Spacewalk-list] Kickstarting a RHEL5 install - better with updates included or not?

[Jens Skott]

I have 3 different environments cloned off the original repo, testing
stagning and prod. I then use the orignial repo to sync the new errata
and packages, then test stage and prod are "frozen" repos witch i
update depending on my lifecycle plan.
I then kickstart a server from a singel profile (bare minimal 300mb
footprint) then add activationkeys in cobbler depending on prod test
or stage.
After I have kickstarted a machine I go over to using chef, where I
handle all application configuration and installation using rpm
packages from the different repos.

Hope that helps you a little. I can assist you further with explaning
in detail if you find it intresting and want to practice the setup i
use for my environment =)

Jens Skott
Tel: +46-8-5142 4396
Schibsted Centralen IT



2012/11/21 Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com>:
> Actually the install from spacewalk with all the updates is cleaner
> because there is no chance an old package might have left artifacts
> behind.
> Although admittedly there are several schools of thought on this some
> prefer to do the updates manually others prefer the updates done in
> the install and there is still an other school of thought that if say
> you are rebuilding a host it should have the exact same rpm versions
> as the original and no additional updates.
> none of them are completely right or wrong its more of a matter of
> preference then any thing else.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Snyder, Chris <Chris_Snyder at sra.com> wrote:
>> Looking for some opinions here.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve got SW 1.8 working with RHEL5 now (thank you, J. Pazdziora) and have a
>> kickstart profile uses three channels for initial package installation: core
>> RHEL5 packages (from the ISO), all current RHEL5 updates so when all is said
>> and done, I have a host ready to roll with no need for updates to be
>> applied.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this the best way to build a host?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t have any particular reason for this, but I have a gut feeling that a
>> better way to build a host might be to ONLY use the core RHEL5 ISO packages
>> and the spacewalk-client packages for initial host creation, then register
>> the host with my RHEL5 update channel, and then apply any needed updates
>> (could be done in a %post section).
>>
>>
>>
>> The second option seems ‘cleaner’ from the stand point of it mimics building
>> a host from an ISO and then applying updates, whereas the first does
>> everything at once.  Theoretically the end result should be the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thx
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Chris Snyder
>>
>> SRA Senior Linux Geek
>> Energystar Network O+M Team
>> ESTAR Issues: https://estar18.energystar.gov/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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