Thanks a lot for your reply Milan. I will try this configuration. Regards, Dan
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Milan Zázrivec <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 10 June 2014 12:10:57 Dan wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > We're deploying a new Spacewalk setup and we are planning to use v2.1 (we > > could use 2.0 if needed). > > > > The issue is that our clients are Fedora 18 based for which we haven't > > found packaged v2.1 spacewalk client (see reference [1]) so we're using > > v2.0 (see [2]). > > > > I have made a test connecting v2.0 clients to v2.1 server and it seems to > > work, but I wonder if this type of configurations are officially > supported. > > > > Does anyone knows about official support / any issues / caveats of this > > type configuration? > > Would it be advisable to use server 2.0 instead? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Dan > > > > Sources: > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/RegisteringClients > > [2] https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/RegisteringClients20 > > I'd say it's okay to use client packages from 2.0 repo with 2.1 server. > There > weren't that many changes between 2.0 and 2.1, so this scenario should > work in general. > > As far as support goes -- should you find any problems in your setup, we > most > likely won't be building new packages for Fedora 18 and the 2.0 repo with > the fix. Though you can always re-build the 2.1 client packages from source > rpms for Fedora 18 yourself and use those builds instead. > > -MZ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
