I've actually thought of doing something simmilar with sattelite-sync betwean instances in the various environments. On Nov 21, 2012 2:48 PM, "Jens Skott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have 3 different environments cloned off the original repo, testing > stagning and prod. I then use the orignial repo to sync the new errata > and packages, then test stage and prod are "frozen" repos witch i > update depending on my lifecycle plan. > I then kickstart a server from a singel profile (bare minimal 300mb > footprint) then add activationkeys in cobbler depending on prod test > or stage. > After I have kickstarted a machine I go over to using chef, where I > handle all application configuration and installation using rpm > packages from the different repos. > > Hope that helps you a little. I can assist you further with explaning > in detail if you find it intresting and want to practice the setup i > use for my environment =) > > Jens Skott > Tel: +46-8-5142 4396 > Schibsted Centralen IT > > > > 2012/11/21 Paul Robert Marino <[email protected]>: > > Actually the install from spacewalk with all the updates is cleaner > > because there is no chance an old package might have left artifacts > > behind. > > Although admittedly there are several schools of thought on this some > > prefer to do the updates manually others prefer the updates done in > > the install and there is still an other school of thought that if say > > you are rebuilding a host it should have the exact same rpm versions > > as the original and no additional updates. > > none of them are completely right or wrong its more of a matter of > > preference then any thing else. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Snyder, Chris <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Looking for some opinions here. > >> > >> > >> > >> I’ve got SW 1.8 working with RHEL5 now (thank you, J. Pazdziora) and > have a > >> kickstart profile uses three channels for initial package installation: > core > >> RHEL5 packages (from the ISO), all current RHEL5 updates so when all is > said > >> and done, I have a host ready to roll with no need for updates to be > >> applied. > >> > >> > >> > >> Is this the best way to build a host? > >> > >> > >> > >> I don’t have any particular reason for this, but I have a gut feeling > that a > >> better way to build a host might be to ONLY use the core RHEL5 ISO > packages > >> and the spacewalk-client packages for initial host creation, then > register > >> the host with my RHEL5 update channel, and then apply any needed updates > >> (could be done in a %post section). > >> > >> > >> > >> The second option seems ‘cleaner’ from the stand point of it mimics > building > >> a host from an ISO and then applying updates, whereas the first does > >> everything at once. Theoretically the end result should be the same. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thx > >> > >> Chris. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Chris Snyder > >> > >> SRA Senior Linux Geek > >> Energystar Network O+M Team > >> ESTAR Issues: https://estar18.energystar.gov/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Spacewalk-list mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Spacewalk-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list > > _______________________________________________ > Spacewalk-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
