On Friday 16 August 2013 4:33:21 am Tomas Lestach wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dimitri Yioulos" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:48:41 PM > > Subject: [Spacewalk-list] Repo update question > > > > Hey, all. > > > > I'm continuing to tweak and/or try to bend Spacewalk to > > my will. This morning, I ran "yum update" on one of my > > servers, and noticed that there was a Samba update > > (from Sernet). This wasn't reflected in the Samba > > channels I created in Spacewalk, which is OK, since I > > have these channels set to update every Saturday > > afternoon, the first of which comes up this Saturday. > > But, to make sure everything works as it should, I > > updated the channels manually from the CLI. Worked > > fine. > > As I'm reading the post, I understood your setup in the > way your servers are subscribed to the Sernet repo and to > the Spacewalk channels with the same content as the repo. > This scenario does not have much sense, if you already > manage some content in Spacewalk, you can safely remove > the original repos from your clients. > But I probably misunderstood. In that case, please ignore > this paragraph. > > > Now, as per help through an earlier post, I created > > cloned channels of the original Samba channels so as to > > be rid of the x86_64 packages, which I don't use, and > > which without being rid of would cause the updates to > > my machines to fail. Also works fine. > > I mean you can set excludes for repo-sync, so it does not > sync packages you do not want. > > > BUT, I noticed after the manual update that my machines > > weren't seeing the new Samba packages. It was only > > after I 1) deleted the previous version packages in the > > original Samba channels, and 2) deleted the packages in > > the cloned Samba channels, that my machines now saw > > that updates were available. > > > > I understand from the previous post that I have to > > accomplish 2) either manually or via a script. My > > question though (and sorry it's taken me so long to get > > here) is should newly updated packages replace older > > ones in my original Samba channels (or any channels, > > for that matter), or must I go through this two-step > > process each time an update occurs? > > Feel free to leave the previous versions of packages in > the channels as well. There's no need to remove them. > They do not harm anything and you then have the option to > downgrade to the older version, if the new wouldn't work > for you. > > > Regards, > -- > Tomas Lestach > Red Hat Satellite Engineering, Red Hat >
Thanks for the reply, Thomas. You're right about removing the original yum repos from the clients. I'll do that once I'm sure that I have updates from Spacewalk working properly. But, that's not my issue. It was suggested to me in a previous post that, to make the Sernet Samba updates to my 32-bit boxes work, I needed to create a clone of the channel so as to filter out 64-bit packages (see this thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/2013-August/msg00017.html). That does work. However, the most recent updates didn't appear to my hosts until I deleted the older ones from the channels (for CentOS 5 and CentOS 6 boxes) and their clones. Is this the behavior I should expect? I have no problem leaving one previous update in the channels, but can see how, over time, the channels can get clogged up with old stuff. Dimitri -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
