On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:19 -0600, inode0 wrote: > On 12/19/06, Sharpe, Sam J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:07 -0600, inode0 wrote: > > > Will Red Hat feed updates to your local yum repository? Or their > > > packages at all? I guess I don't see why using local yum repos, which > > > one can do now anyway, would make a proxy server less valuable?! > > > > An RHN Proxy doesn't get fed. It's basically a squid cache that fetches > > from RHN when a package is first requested, then serves from the cache > > from then on. > > It gets fed when it tells RHN it is hungry. > > In an academic environment a proxy server has two huge benefits and > the hidden one is probably worth more than the more visible one. It > includes a site subscription for personal use machines for our users > as well as providing an update cache.
Dear John, I take it the "site subscription for personal use machines" is the hidden benefit. If so, I understand the value of the RHN Proxy Server better, thank you. It just seems to me with the move from up2date to yum, Red Hat is moving towards different update models, closer to Fedora Core. Uninformed speculation - perhaps Red Hat will decouple the "site subscription" from the RHN Proxy Server in the future. I have no idea, but IMO the move to yum leads to lots of questions - and the reaction to bug 219336 suggests to me that it's more than Red Hat can handle before RHEL 5 is released. On this topic, will the move to yum mean that Red Hat has to make significant changes to the RHN Proxy Server code? Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
