[Spacewalk-list] Ubuntu 18.04 package management in Spacewalk 2.8

[Paul-Andre Panon]

After clearing the unwanted entries in the rhnServerNeededCache table, I
verified that the incorrect packages had been cleared from the package
list for the servers. I then ran rhn_check on one of the clients that had
been cleared and after some delay (due to queuing a taskomatic task to
update the server's package list?) the incorrect packages came back.
Hopefully that can help someone else figure out the last few steps of
which task is incorrectly updating rhnServerNeededCache, why it's doing
it, and fix the bug.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul-Andre Panon <paul-andre.panon at avigilon.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 6:06 PM
To: 'spacewalk-list at redhat.com' <spacewalk-list at redhat.com>;
'spacewalk-list at redhat.com' <spacewalk-list at redhat.com>
Subject: RE: Ubuntu 18.04 package management in Spacewalk 2.8

It looks like there aren't too many things that insert into the
rhnServerNeededCache.
./java/code/src/com/redhat/rhn/manager/errata/cache/ErrataCacheManager.jav
a calls some queries directly to insert into the table, and the
update_needed_cache stored procedure could also be a cause.

I've cleared out the table rows for some server/package combos in our
environment that I know are invalid, and I'll see if the entries get
repopulated for those combos during the next sync or at other times. That
will hopefully help narrow down the possibilities. Most of those table
inserts appear to have to do with the errata cache management so maybe
there's something in there that was missed during the PR500 fixes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul-Andre Panon <paul-andre.panon at avigilon.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:51 PM
To: 'spacewalk-list at redhat.com' <spacewalk-list at redhat.com>;
'spacewalk-list at redhat.com' <spacewalk-list at redhat.com>
Subject: RE: Ubuntu 18.04 package management in Spacewalk 2.8

Earlier today I wrote about the changes in PR500. That parsing actually
seems to be OK after all because the EVR entries in the database are OK.

That said, it looks like the spurious package entries are due to spurious
entries in the rhnServerNeededCache table. So the question is what is
populating the rhnServerNeededCache table incorrectly, and why?