I don't see what errata has to do with this ... it's kickstarting that
was broken ...
If errata do or do not sync does not really matter at that point since
anaconda doesn't know about errata does it?
Regards,
G.
On 11/02/14 16:33, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
are you using any of the errata sync scripts by any chance?
if so then you are probably hitting a known bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834569
by the way spacewalk handles it just fine its yum that can't deal with
it I would need to see the actual error but I bet its seeing two
packages with the same name with different checksum's in the same
channel.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Amedeo Salvati <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi George,
but you have created a base/child channels for every minor release of
centos?
Usually I create only one base, and relative child channels for every centos
major release (5.x or 6.x) by pointing to:
....../mirrors/CentOS/6/os/x86_64/
....../mirrors/CentOS/6/updates/x86_64/
and if you want a specific centos release (6.1, 6.2, 6.3...) you can use
cloned channel or spacewalk-clone-by-date command
best regards
a
Da: [email protected]
A: [email protected]
Cc:
Data: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:23:40 +0100
Oggetto: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Error While Kickstarting
filed bugreport http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6977
Regards,
G.
On 11/02/14 12:23, George wrote:
So today I got my kickstarts working again ...
so I went in a little deeper and got a peek at the current package repos
online and checksummed them:
a351949c3b473df3ea9b524b1fa02d33
redhat-logos-60.0.14-12.el6.centos.noarch.rpm.6.4_32
e8846e8f42eb877abc2fce1c8bd2f0e9
redhat-logos-60.0.14-12.el6.centos.noarch.rpm.6.4_64
a351949c3b473df3ea9b524b1fa02d33
redhat-logos-60.0.14-12.el6.centos.noarch.rpm.6.5_32
a351949c3b473df3ea9b524b1fa02d33
redhat-logos-60.0.14-12.el6.centos.noarch.rpm.6.5_64
502fb747b0e28ed38f218d9ab3bb1479
xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm.6.3_32
261220c805ac1ca4207b21c756c4dc32
xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm.6.3_64
502fb747b0e28ed38f218d9ab3bb1479
xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm.6.4_32
261220c805ac1ca4207b21c756c4dc32
xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm.6.4_64
502fb747b0e28ed38f218d9ab3bb1479
xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm.6.5_32
502fb747b0e28ed38f218d9ab3bb1479
xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm.6.5_64
basicly: packages with exactly the same name exist in both centos 6.5
and centos 6.4 repo (and sometimes also centos 6.3), but their checksum
is different!
I guess the deduplication engine from spacewalk can't handle that and
when I imported centos 6.5 it linked some of the packages to the equally
named package from centos 6.4 and since for kickstart you use the
repodata on the dvd the checksum on install is different from the
checksum in the repodata and all the errors like "download does not
match expected package", "package corrupted" will kill the install.
In conclusion: cleaning out all the OS repos in my spacewalk and only
syncing the centos 6.5 one fixed it for me ...
Regards,
G
On 10/02/14 22:20, George wrote:
Hello again,
I think I figured out the problem:
when kickstarting anaconda fetches the packages from the url (for a
kickstart with centos 6.5 x86_64):
http://spacewalk/ks/dist/centos-6.5-x86_64/Packages/*
One of my kickstarts failed for example at the package xdg-utils:
http://spacewalk/ks/dist/centos-6.5-x86_64/Packages/xdg-utils-1.0.2-17.20091016cvs.el6.noarch.rpm
So I did a wget of this package and compared the sha256sum to a the
webinterface and another package from a public mirror
the sha256sum is and should be:
a371df77e3e50d353c77a7965be90c796a755f0413f8dd62d4fc50b993fe9f69
but the file I wget from the url above shows:
2d1ae581c04ffd265220e5e8befb1f40c77de7e9299d65d95f1f4a4a33ae4264
when I lookup xdg-utils it says that it's the same version in centos
6.5
x86_64, centos 6.3 ia32, centos 6.4 ia32
when I do a search for that package I also find a package which matches
the sha256sum from the package I wget (and which fails to install on
kickstart) in the channel centos 6.4 x86_64 and centos 6.3 x86_64
so to conclude:
spacewalk is making mistakes when it seperates channels ... it takes
wrong packages in wrong channels ...
Cleaning up all my channels now and re-syncing only the centos 6.5
x86_64 packages ...
Come to think of this I have seen this behavior before ... but only
with
1 package and there I also deleted this particular package and resynced
it again from a mirror.
Any developer could dig in the code and try and find why this happens?
Regards,
G.
On 17/01/14 01:43, George wrote:
Hello,
recently I encountered the same behavior,
did you find a solution for this in the end?
It seems to be a terrible problem from which I cannot seem to recover
... I tried deleting all packages from a channel, deleting the
repodata
cache and re-fetching the whole lot and rebuilding repodata to no
avail.
One train of thought is that it has something to do with proxy stuff
...
but I am not so sure how spacewalk exactly works on that part ... I
know
the httpd runs an proxy_ajp module or something but not sure how this
all plays together ...
I am at a complete loss here ... if I can't get it fixed in due time I
see no other option but to install a new spacewalk server and redo my
whole setup :-(
centos 5.10 x86_64 with spacewalk 2.0 (upgraded a couple of months ago
from 1.6, but up to now it looked to run fine ... )
I checked httpd logs but they just say similar things like described
below a code 206 and no relevant errors in the catalina.out either.
I tried with several -working fine up to last week- profiles but none
seem to want to install.
Regards,
G.
On 01/10/13 15:57, Wojtak, Greg wrote:
SELinux is permissive. I checked /var/log/httpd/error_log, nothing.
Something in /var/log/httpd/access_log caught my attention though -
1.2.3.4 - - [01/Oct/2013:09:51:58 -0400] "GET
/ks/dist/CentOS-6.4-x86_64/Packages/gdbm-1.8.0-36.el6.x86_64.rpm
HTTP/1.1"
206 7504 "-" "CentOS (anaconda)/6.4"
Looks like it is getting a 206 response code and only about 7K of the
rpm,
which is about 15K short. According to RFC2616, 206 is a Partial
Content
response code, which I'm not really familiar with.
Any ideas about that? Is there some httpd setting I need to tweak?
-- Greg Wojtak Senior Unix Systems Engineer Office: (313) 373-4306
Mobile: (734) 718-8472 On 10/1/13 9:20 AM, "Michael Mraka"
wrote:
Wojtak, Greg wrote:
% >% Try 10/10 for
%
http:///ks/dist/CentOS-6.4-x86_64/Packages/gdbm-1.8.0-3
6
% >.el6.x86_64.rpm failed: [Errno 1] Header is not complete.
% >% Failed to get
%
http:///ks/dist/CentOS-6.4-x86_64/Packages/gdbm-1.8.0-3
6
% >.el6.x86_64.rpm from mirror 1/1, or downloaded file is corrupt.
% >%
% >% >From the command prompt window, I can wget that url and pull
down
the
% >file.
% >%
% >% I've tried removing the package from the channel and re-adding
it,
the
% >result was the same. I've tried creating a new kickstart profile
(from
% >scratch, not a clone), also with the same result.
% >%
% >% Any ideas?
% >
% >I'd locate gdbm-1.8.0-36.el6.x86_64.rpm on spacewalk's disk and
% >run rpm -K to check whether it's ok.
%
%
% Thanks Michael. The RPM itself appears to be fine:
%
% [root@spacewalk satellite]# rpm -K
%
redhat/1/66d/gdbm/1.8.0-36.el6/x86_64/66d7e15c29b5215a5723962777734c389ac6
b
% 7f9e726ec362e33277e3c7fe58c/gdbm-1.8.0-36.el6.x86_64.rpm
%
redhat/1/66d/gdbm/1.8.0-36.el6/x86_64/66d7e15c29b5215a5723962777734c389ac6
b
% 7f9e726ec362e33277e3c7fe58c/gdbm-1.8.0-36.el6.x86_64.rpm: rsa
sha1
(md5)
% pgp md5 OK
% [root@spacewalk satellite]# rpm -q --info -p
%
redhat/1/66d/gdbm/1.8.0-36.el6/x86_64/66d7e15c29b5215a5723962777734c389ac6
b
% 7f9e726ec362e33277e3c7fe58c/gdbm-1.8.0-36.el6.x86_64.rpm
% Name : gdbm Relocations: (not
relocatable)
% Version : 1.8.0 Vendor: CentOS
% Release : 36.el6 Build Date: Thu 11 Nov
2010
...
Hmm, permission and/or selinux? Any eeror in
/var/log/httpd/error_log or
any AVC in /var/log/audit/audit.log?
Can other clients registered to the same channel download the
package?
Regards,
--
Michael Mráka
Satellite Engineering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
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
