On 12/19/06, Sharpe, Sam J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 07:53 -0800, MJang wrote:
> Folks,
>
> One more yum related question - just took a look at the RHUP304 course
> outline, and that includes coverage of yum repositories.
>
> That suggests to me that Red Hat will encourage the use of local yum
> repositories, which IMO would make the RHN Proxy unnecessary.
>
> Will RHN Proxy continue with RHEL 5?
I'm confused.
up2date is implemented via a yum plugin. The protocol to/from the RHN
Proxy and to upstream RHN has not changed. To therefore get updates you
either:
1) Go direct to RHN with yum (bad if you have a couple of thousand
systems)
2) Go to an RHN proxy with Yum (good)
3) Use yum to make a local yum repository of all the updates (good)
While I can see the advantage of creating a local yum repository over
RHN Proxy, you have to download all packages for all architectures you
are interested in... with an RHN Proxy it does that for you on demand.
What I do think will become a little blurred is the reasons to buy RHN
Satellite, which seems to have the major feature of offline use. If I
wanted to run without a link to RedHat, pre-approve patches before they
are available to users etc., then it would be worth my while setting up
a local Yum mirror... so why would anyone ever buy Satellite?
The main reasons would be if your site requires you to account for
what software is on your hardware (US Government (FISMA), US public
corporations (SOX), and US hospitals (HIPAA), and various
European/Asian laws/regulations). In many cases these sites do not
have public access and want an offline storage/installation/reporting
model.
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
