On May 30, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Prakash Velayutham wrote: > > On May 29, 2012, at 3:23 AM, 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, >> >> -- >> Michael Mráka >> Satellite Engineering, Red Hat >> > > The other question is, after I schedule an update for a client from the > Spacewalk server, when it runs on the client, does it update all the packages > that were selected from the Spacewalk server, or just what "yum check-update" > returns (which might be a subset)? > > Thanks, > Prakash >
Anyone?? Thanks, Prakash _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
