[Spacewalk-list] Repo update question

[Dimitri Yioulos]

On Friday 16 August 2013 4:33:21 am Tomas Lestach wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Dimitri Yioulos" <dyioulos at onpointfc.com>
> > To: spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:48:41 PM
> > Subject: [Spacewalk-list] Repo update question
> >
> > Hey, all.
> >
> > I'm continuing to tweak and/or try to bend Spacewalk to
> > my will.  This morning, I ran "yum update" on one of my
> > servers, and noticed that there was a Samba update
> > (from Sernet).  This wasn't reflected in the Samba
> > channels I created in Spacewalk, which is OK, since I
> > have these channels set to update every Saturday
> > afternoon, the first of which comes up this Saturday. 
> > But, to make sure everything works as it should, I
> > updated the channels manually from the CLI.  Worked
> > fine.
>
> As I'm reading the post, I understood your setup in the
> way your servers are subscribed to the Sernet repo and to
> the Spacewalk channels with the same content as the repo.
> This scenario does not have much sense, if you already
> manage some content in Spacewalk, you can safely remove
> the original repos from your clients.
> But I probably misunderstood. In that case, please ignore
> this paragraph.
>
> > Now, as per help through an earlier post, I created
> > cloned channels of the original Samba channels so as to
> > be rid of the x86_64 packages, which I don't use, and
> > which without being rid of would cause the updates to
> > my machines to fail.  Also works fine.
>
> I mean you can set excludes for repo-sync, so it does not
> sync packages you do not want.
>
> > BUT, I noticed after the manual update that my machines
> > weren't seeing the new Samba packages.  It was only
> > after I 1) deleted the previous version packages in the
> > original Samba channels, and 2) deleted the packages in
> > the cloned Samba channels, that my machines now saw
> > that updates were available.
> >
> > I understand from the previous post that I have to
> > accomplish 2) either manually or via a script.  My
> > question though (and sorry it's taken me so long to get
> > here) is should newly updated packages replace older
> > ones in my original Samba channels (or any channels,
> > for that matter), or must I go through this two-step
> > process each time an update occurs?
>
> Feel free to leave the previous versions of packages in
> the channels as well. There's no need to remove them.
> They do not harm anything and you then have the option to
> downgrade to the older version, if the new wouldn't work
> for you.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Tomas Lestach
> Red Hat Satellite Engineering, Red Hat
>


Thanks for the reply, Thomas.

You're right about removing the original yum repos from the 
clients.  I'll do that once I'm sure that I have updates 
from Spacewalk working properly.

But, that's not my issue.  It was suggested to me in a 
previous post that, to make the Sernet Samba updates to my 
32-bit boxes work, I needed to create a clone of the 
channel so as to filter out 64-bit packages (see this 
thread: 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/2013-August/msg00017.html).  
That does work.  However, the most recent updates didn't 
appear to my hosts until I deleted the older ones from the 
channels (for CentOS 5 and CentOS 6 boxes) and their 
clones.  Is this the behavior I should expect?  I have no 
problem leaving one previous update in the channels, but 
can see how, over time, the channels can get clogged up 
with old stuff.

Dimitri

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.