Bedankt for the suggestion Andreas, It appears that someone previously - in 2012 logged a report about this very same problem with the installation procedure.
The installation guide on the wiki states: "Spacewalk uses database server to store its primary data. It supports either PostgreSQL (version 8.4 and higher) or Oracle RDBMS (version 10g or higher)." Unfortunately the rpm needs some help to differentiate when something higher than 8.4 is actually installed. As far as I can tell from what I read in the response to the bug report, the problem is that the RPM is looking for 8.4 specific files and needs to be updated to include handling the changes implemented for 9 and above. Creating and managing RPMs is not in my current skillset - I would rather not spend my time learning how to do that when I won't be doing that as a regular thing. It looks like I'd have to find the source of the spacewalk rpm to discover exactly how it's coded and how it's specifying the postgresql dependencies. Then I could put together a fakeout rpm as a companion to the postgresql9x rpms that would provide the missing metadata to fake out the spacewalk rpm. Seems like it would be a much easier effort for someone already well familiar with the spacewalk rpm construction to make the mods necessary to handle postgresql9x. Robert Boyd Sr. Systems Engineer PeopleFluent p. 919-645-2972 | c. 919-306-4681 e. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [cid:[email protected]]<http://www.peoplefluent.com/> Visit: www.peoplefluent.com<http://www.peoplefluent.com/> | Read: Peoplefluent Blog<http://peoplefluent.com/resources/peoplefluent-blog> | Follow: @peoplefluent<http://twitter.com/peoplefluent> | Download: iPad App<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/peoplefluent/id474251804?mt=8> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas Dijkman Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] upgrading postgres (8.4 > 9.x) on the spacewalk server ? Hi, The RPM isn't actually looking at the file but at the file specs of all available RPM's. You need to install and rpm that provides the binary /usr/bin/psql in it's metadata. You could build an metadata-only-rpm that depends on all the postgresql-9.x-stuff and provides the necessary files in it's metadata and secretly creates symlinks underneath. Met vriendelijke groet, Andreas Dijkman Oracle Technical Consultant Phone: +31(0)50-210 0132 | Mobile: +31(0)6-8115 2982 Cygnis<http://www.cygnis.nl/> | Stationsweg 3B | 9726 AC Groningen Op maandag afwezig On 23 Jul, 2014, at 23:42 , Boyd, Robert <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I tried changing the link for /usr/bin/psql to directly link to the binary. That didn't help. I tried removing the link and copying the binary to /usr/bin/psql -- that didn't help either. I take it this means that the error message I'm getting isn't telling me the truth about what the real error is. Robert Boyd Sr. Systems Engineer PeopleFluent p. 919-645-2972 | c. 919-306-4681 e. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> -----Original Message----- From: Boyd, Robert Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:33 PM To: '[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>' Subject: RE: [Spacewalk-list] upgrading postgres (8.4 > 9.x) on the spacewalk server ? I'm attempting an install of spacewalk 2.2 using postgresql-9.3. I installed and manually configured postgresql. When I attempt to install spacewalk I get this error: yum install spacewalk-postgresql ... many dependencies resolved ... etc ... Error: Package: spacewalk-postgresql-2.2.2-1.el6.noarch (spacewalk) Requires: /usr/bin/psql However there is clearly something there: [root ~]# ll /usr/bin/psql lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 28 Jul 21 12:35 /usr/bin/psql -> /etc/alternatives/pgsql-psql [root ~]# ll /etc/alternatives/pgsql-psql lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 23 Jul 21 12:35 /etc/alternatives/pgsql-psql -> /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/psql [root ~]# ll /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/psql -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 447560 Mar 18 03:19 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/psql What is this package expecting to find there? Is a symbolic link not good enough? Can I fake it out by copying over the real binary or changing the link to point directly to the binary instead of an intermediate link? Robert Boyd Sr. Systems Engineer PeopleFluent p. 919-645-2972 | c. 919-306-4681 e. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
