Jan Pazdziora wrote:
Slightly to my previous post about Spacewalk Proxy:
the rhncfg* packages got installed from RHN Tools
=============================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
=============================================================================
Installing:
spacewalk-proxy-installer noarch 0.4.4-1.el5 spacewalk 28 k
Installing for dependencies:
apr i386 1.2.7-11 rhel-i386-server-5 123 k
apr-util i386 1.2.7-7.el5 rhel-i386-server-5 76 k
httpd i386 2.2.3-11.el5_2.4 rhel-i386-server-5 1.1 M
postgresql-libs i386 8.1.11-1.el5_1.1 rhel-i386-server-5 196 k
rhncfg noarch 5.1.0-3.el5
rhn-tools-rhel-i386-server-5 51 k
rhncfg-actions noarch 5.1.0-3.el5
rhn-tools-rhel-i386-server-5 27 k
rhncfg-client noarch 5.1.0-3.el5
rhn-tools-rhel-i386-server-5 23 k
rhncfg-management noarch 5.1.0-3.el5
rhn-tools-rhel-i386-server-5 33 k
because their version (5.1.0-3) is greater than what is in the
Spacewalk repo (0.3.1-1). Is that right? Is Spacewalk (Proxy, but
I assume it might also affect clients) only supported for machines
that are not subscribed to the RHN Tools channel?
Shouldn't we bring the version of rhncfg* back?
Yes. When we lower the version, we should bump up epoch. Or we should
not lower it in first place.
Anyone willing to raise up the version and tag package?
--
Miroslav Suchy
RHN Satellite Engineering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
