[Spacewalk-list] Repo update question

[Dimitri Yioulos]

Nope.


On Friday 16 August 2013 8:45:07 am Thomas Foster wrote:
> You can do that too.  You don't have the server
> subscribed to both channels do you?
>
> On Aug 16, 2013 8:42 AM, "Dimitri Yioulos" 
<dyioulos at onpointfc.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 16 August 2013 8:24:05 am Thomas Foster wrote:
> > > 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
> > > >-Aug ust/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-l
> > > >ist
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > Do you mean as in "yum clean all"?
> >
> > 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



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