Hello, Thanks you for your answer. I think I will set up something like you have done for centos.
Pierre 2011/8/9 John Hodrien <[email protected]> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Martin Eggen wrote: > > Hi, >> >> the Updates channel receive all updates packages. I used this layout >> mostly >> because it was suggested for the CentOS channels, and it also matches my >> yum >> repositories as created by mrepo. For some systems I want to be able to >> subscribe them just to a specific Base channel (RHEL 5.x) and then adding >> updates later as needed. >> >> I created one main configuration channel pr. OS (we have both RHEL and >> Solaris systems), and then some role/application specific channels. Make >> sure to rank the more specific configuration channels higher than the >> general channel (so any common configuration files will read the more >> specific version). >> > > I could never quite decide the right/best way to lay out the channels. > > This time I've gone with: > > CentOS 6 (contains no packages) > ------CentOS 6.0 > ------CentOS 6.0 updates > ------CentOS 6.0 approved updates > ------CentOS 6 internal packages > > Then when 6.1 comes out, I can add a 6.1 child channel, test a new > kickstart > against it (without disturbing the existing 6.0 kickstart). I can test > updates to 6.1 without disturbing the existing 6.0 machines. Moving from > 6.0 > to 6.1 doesn't affect the base channel subscription. 6.0 updates would be > a > regularly repo-synced version of 6.0 updates, and 6.0 approved updates > would > contain a subset of the updates channel. > > jh > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Spacewalk-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/**mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-**list<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list> >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
