Will Cladek wrote:
> In fact, upon further investigation, it seems to be the case that ALL
> packages from the CentOS 5.3 x86_64 update repo aren't being recognized
> by yum (when doing a "yum list"), even though they are in the channel as
> verified on the spacewalk server. I just put both the base and update
> repos in the same channel, rather than making update a child channel as
> mentioned in another thread, but this wasn't a problem with spacewalk
> 0.2 and CentOS 5.2. Spacwalk shows kernel-2.6.18-128.1.1.el5.x86_64
> being in the x86_64 channel, but not yum:
<snip>
Right. I just used the sync_repo.sh script I posted a while back, and it didn't
work. Or, I thought it worked, and I think it got the right i386 release. But I
kept failing when I tried to do the upgrade, after unsubscribing my test system
from the 5.2 channel, and subscribing it to the 5.3. Then, last night, the
other admin I work with realized that I did *not* have an x86_64 repository,but
rather that it was full of the i386 version. He wound up remaking the cache,
and then seems to have gotten the correct release.
This is uncomfortable. I don't understand why this occurs in a released version
of software. I would have expected testing for something like a full subrelease
upgrade.
mark "way too much manual 'oh, yeah, got to do that, too'"
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-list mailing list
Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
