On Friday 16 August 2013 8:24:05 am Thomas Foster wrote: > Did you clear the metadatafrom the client when you added > the new package? > > On Aug 16, 2013 8:20 AM, "Dimitri Yioulos" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-Aug > >ust/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
Thomas, Do you mean as in "yum clean all"? 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
