[email protected] wrote:
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....
can you do rpm -qa on each and diff it?
~m
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
