On 2012-05-29 09:23, Michael Mraka wrote:
Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
% On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:13:04 +0000
% "Velayutham, Prakash" <[email protected]> wrote:
%
% > Hi,
% >
% > I just noticed that the update list for one of the clients (I am
sure
% > there are other clients with this issue too) is different when I
% > check using "yum check-update" on the client compared to what the
% > Spacewalk server shows. Is this expected?
% >
% > Spacewalk version - 1.6
%
% I noticed it too, even with 1.7: it seems that "yum update" (or
% check-update) also lists packages that will replace other packages,
% while spacewalk just seems to update to the newest version of each
of
% the installed packages, plus dependancies.
Another reason for this behavior could be use of yum plugins
which modify list of packages - e.g. priorities, protect-packages,
protectbase, versionlock etc.
Spacewalk has no idea what's filtered out locally on the client.
Regards,
This is certainly true, but packages which "obsolete" other packages in
their RPM definition are not taken into account by spacewalk, resulting
in situations where "yum update" and "spacewalk update" (as a matter of
speaking) result in a different package set being installed, even if yum
has no exceptions, protected packages, etc.. defined.
If spacewalk is not capable of returning the same set of packages as
yum update (again: if yum has no exceptions, protected packages, etc..
defined), it should be considered a bug, no?
Maybe it would be easier/more correct if spacewalk asks the client for
the list of packages available for update and use that list?
Franky
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
