On 03/25/2011 08:16 PM, Luc de Louw wrote:
> The other question that arises is: How would this affect RHN-Satellite?
I got this idea for Spacewalk. It is still my personal idea. When and if
we do this for Spacewalk, then we may start thinking about RHN
Satellite. But that is far future.
--
Miros
On 03/25/2011 03:34 PM, Cliff Perry wrote:
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 03/25/2011 02:00 PM, Michael Gliwinski wrote:
Anyway, may I ask why? Is it getting in the way somehow?
It cost resources. Especially for testing.
Think of the big picture matrix of OS + arch combinations.
http://spacewal
On Friday 25 Mar 2011 14:34:38 Cliff Perry wrote:
> Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > On 03/25/2011 02:00 PM, Michael Gliwinski wrote:
> >> Anyway, may I ask why? Is it getting in the way somehow?
> >
> > It cost resources. Especially for testing.
>
> Think of the big picture matrix of OS + arch combina
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 03/25/2011 02:00 PM, Michael Gliwinski wrote:
Anyway, may I ask why? Is it getting in the way somehow?
It cost resources. Especially for testing.
Think of the big picture matrix of OS + arch combinations.
http://spacewalk.redhat.com/yum/1.3/
Fedora 13
1) i386
2)
On 03/25/2011 02:00 PM, Michael Gliwinski wrote:
> Anyway, may I ask why? Is it getting in the way somehow?
It cost resources. Especially for testing.
--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Satellite Engineering
___
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
Spacewalk-devel@re
On Thursday 24 Mar 2011 17:14:36 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> But before I head shot i386 architecture, I'm asking: Does somebody use
> i386 architecture? If yes can you migrate to x86_64? Will you miss i386
> architecture?
I would probably miss it short-term. I'm running Spacewalk in a VM on ESXi
se
Dear users of Spacewalk,
I was thinking about dropping i386 architecture for Spacewalk server.
Client tools will be still build and released for i386. But servers
itself not.
All current HW is 64bit but Atoms. And Atom is not the best choice for
Spacewalk. So I do not see reason for i386.
But befo
