Nope.
On Friday 16 August 2013 8:45:07 am Thomas Foster wrote: > You can do that too. You don't have the server > subscribed to both channels do you? > > On Aug 16, 2013 8:42 AM, "Dimitri Yioulos" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-l > > > >ist > > > > 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 -- 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
