Mairin,
>Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:00:47 -0500
>From: Máirín Duffy <[email protected]>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> What is in this template? That seems like a good place to investigate.
>>> If it's not CentOSSS @Base, then the problem may lie in diff between the
>>> template you're using and @Base.
>>
>> Not sure - but again, let me note that I believe it's *exactly* the same
>> that's running on the test system, that spacewalk .1 is running happily in.
>>
>
>You "believe" but do you "know" ? :)
Ya got me! <falls to floor>
Test (spacewalk .1):
uname -a
Linux chi-test-spacewalk 2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jun 25 13:49:24 EDT 2008
i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Prod (the new one):
uname -a
Linux corp-spwk-chi-02.trustwave.com 2.6.18-92.1.13.el5 #1 SMP Wed Sep 24
19:33:52 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
However, lsb_release -a tells me that they're the same. So, looks like minor
upgrades. But if I have to assume that spacewalk is that fragile, or that a
major change that breaks thing that are built for that o/s, *and* if the rpm
requirements will only allow it if it matches, that there are some hidden
things, I'm in deep do-do. I'm not really up to debugging the full o/s....
mark, going to see what announcements say about the
newer kernel
But now, if I am forced to assume that
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
