On 3/15/07, Jay Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 09:23 -0500, inode0 wrote:
> Many folks here use the boot.iso to begin interactive network
> installs. I tested the x86 Server boot.iso yesterday and it accepted
> all of our installation numbers. This morning I tried an install using
> the x86 Desktop boot.iso and it is rejecting all of our installation
> numbers as being invalid. Has anyone else seen this?
Are these "official" Installation Numbers (i.e. pulled from the
redhat.com website)? I seem to recall that the Client doesn't like to
be handed Server INs and vice versa so maybe that's the problem you're
seeing.
Yes they are the official ones tied to our two site subscriptions. The
problem is not restricted to the boot.iso, any installation method has
the same problem. We have one subscription covering university owned
equipment and one covering personal use. Currently they both work for
server installs and neither works for desktop installs. I've contacted
customer service about the issue now. Seems to be some confusion about
how our subscriptions should map into the RHEL5 world.
John
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
