[Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

[Robert Paschedag]

Am 18. September 2017 23:38:14 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon <paul-andre.panon at avigilon.com>:
>Guten abend Herr Paschedag,
>
>The upgrade documentation wasn't clear, so I wiped out all the
>channels, repos, and orphan packages using
>http://www.hrbac.cz/2017/06/proper-way-to-delete-channelrepositorypackages-in-spacewalk/
>(except for the last step since /srv/satellite is empty, and
>/var/satellite had no symlinks)
>Then I rebuilt my channels and repos, and re-synced the packages from
>the repos. And then for good measure I decided I had made a mistake,
>deleted my security and update channels with combined main/universe
>repos (same cleanup process) and rebuilt them with 1 repo/channel. So
>those channels got cleaned twice :-)
>
>I have a separate file system set up for the Spacewalk var tree, and
>the space usage had gone down significantly during the cleanups
>(90+%=>20+%), with the remaining usage consistent with the CentOS
>channels that were left untouched, so I'm fairly sure they were
>effective. However I'll run any DB queries you might suggest to
>confirm.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul-Andre Panon
>Senior systems administrator
>
>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Paschedag [mailto:robert.paschedag at web.de] 
>Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 2:27 AM
>To: spacewalk-list at redhat.com; Paul-Andre Panon
><paul-andre.panon at avigilon.com>; spacewalk-list at redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling
>
>Am 15. September 2017 21:46:56 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon
><paul-andre.panon at avigilon.com>:
>>We switched to Spacewalk 2.7 late last week to see how things are 
>>working out with Ubuntu and the PR500 changes. It does seem to have 
>>improved a lot but we're still seeing some issues. We have some
>systems 
>>where Spacewalk appears to recommend upgrading to packages that are 
>>actually a downgrade.
>>
>>Latest Package                                                        
>
>>                                                      Installed
>Package
>>compiz-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb                       
>
>>                     
>compiz-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
>>compiz-core-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb                
>
>>             compiz-core-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>compiz-gnome-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb               
>
>>        compiz-gnome-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb     
>
>>  compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>gcc-4.9-base-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1.amd64-deb                          
>
>>                         gcc-4.9-base-4.9.3-0ubuntu4.amd64-deb
>>libcompizconfig0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb           
>
>>         libcompizconfig0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>libdecoration0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb             
>
>>           
>libdecoration0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>libgcc1-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb                             
>
>>                               libgcc1-4.9.3-0ubuntu4:1.amd64-deb
>>
>>If we select them by accident, the client notices that the packages
>are 
>>a downgrade and refuses to install them. However it does mean that we 
>>have systems being reported as having a number of outstanding patches 
>>when they are actually up to date.
>>
>>Paul-Andre Panon
>>Senior systems administrator
>>
>>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Spacewalk-list mailing list
>>Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
>>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
>Did you "fully" remove all packages from spacewalk and synced them
>again before you tried that?
>
>Robert

No... That is exactly what I asked for. It's because the version string parsing changed and therefore, ALL packages need to be removed from the database and loaded in again.

If you keep the packages and just upgrade to 2.7 nightly, you still have all the packages with the old algorithm (and old "wrong" version strings) in the database and this can cause such trouble as you described.

That's why I asked.

But if you already did fully wipe all packages and synced them again AND the error persists, then we have to dig deeper.

Regards
Robert