[Spacewalk-list] Repo update question

[Thomas Foster]

Did you clear the metadatafrom the client when you added the new package?
On Aug 16, 2013 8:20 AM, "Dimitri Yioulos" <dyioulos at onpointfc.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/attachments/20130816/d024a474/attachment.htm>