On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 10:55 -0500, inode0 wrote: > 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.
I'll echo a me too on that one. Our contract is only listing an installation number of Server (base), which is useless as we need to install RHEL5D+Workstation and RHEL5+Advanced Platform. I've submitted an SR (#1339304) with RedHat and requested escalation to my account manager... -- Sam _______________________________________________ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
