-----Original Message----- From: Jan Hutař [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:41 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Dimitri Yioulos <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Client updates failing
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:22:18 +0000 Dimitri Yioulos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Hutař [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:31 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Dimitri Yioulos <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Client updates failing > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:38:04 +0000 Dimitri Yioulos > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello, all. > > > > I have version 2.4 installed on a CentOS 6 box. It was working > > great ... until now. When I try to run an update, it ultimately > > fails. The following appears in the client's Spacewalk Events > > History: Client execution returned > > "Requested packages already installed" (code 0. I've tried > > dropping the jabber db's, removing osad-auth.conf on the clients, > > etc., all with no joy. Extensive research has turned up no > > solution. > > > > Can anyone help? > > > > Many thanks. > > Hello > > Please could you change if you are hitting: > > Bug 1302198 - remote package upgrade saying newer package is > installed, but it is not > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302198 > > ? > > > Dimitri > > > > Regards, > Jan > > > > -- > Jan Hutar Systems Management QA > [email protected] Red Hat, Inc. > > > Hi, Jan. > > Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking me to do. Have I hit a > bug? A fix in the works? A work-around? Because, right now, I have > a non-working Spacewalk. > > Dimitri I'm sorry, I have wrote "Please could you change if you are hitting:" but meant "Please could you check if you are hitting:". If I understood you correctly, you have issues with updating your clients right? You might be hitting linked bug. Is your "non-working Spacewalk" a different issue? Please keep me in CC. Regards, Jan -- Jan Hutar Systems Management QA [email protected] Red Hat, Inc. Jan, I appear to be hitting at least a similar bug. When I run "rhn_check -vv, I get a slightly different result: [root@bofi ~]# /usr/sbin/rhn_check -vv D: do_call packages.checkNeedUpdate('rhnsd=1',){} Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, rhnplugin D: login(forceUpdate=False) invoked D: readCachedLogin invoked D: Checking pickled loginInfo, currentTime=1455286056.83, createTime=1455275977.21, expire-offset=3600.0 D: Pickled loginInfo has expired, created = 1455275977.21, expire = 1455279577.21. logging into up2date server D: rpcServer: Calling XMLRPC up2date.login D: writeCachedLogin() invoked D: Wrote pickled loginInfo at 1455286056.85 with expiration of 1455289656.85 seconds. successfully retrieved authentication token from up2date server D: logininfo:{'X-RHN-Server-Id': 1000010098, 'X-RHN-Auth-Server-Time': '1455286058.04', 'X-RHN-Auth': 'WPcBJp95xQnGWkJegZDD9RnvXc0i4k9eC9d3IxzdCqk=', 'X-RHN-Auth-Channels': [['centos5-x86_64', '20150219163429', '1', '1'], ['rpmforge-el5-x86_64', '20160211020000', '0', '1'], ['puppet-el5-x86_64', '20160211100000', '0', '1'], ['spacewalk-client-el5-x86_64', '20160211110000', '0', '1'], ['centos5-updates-x86_64', '20160211070000', '0', '1'], ['centos5-base-x86_64', '20160211040000', '0', '1'], ['epel5-x86_64', '20160211000000', '0', '1']], 'X-RHN-Auth-User-Id': '', 'X-RHN-Auth-Expire-Offset': '3600.0'} D: rpcServer: Calling XMLRPC up2date.listChannels This system is receiving updates from RHN Classic or Red Hat Satellite. Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: cosmos.illinois.edu * epel: ftp.cse.buffalo.edu * extras: mirror.lug.udel.edu * updates: mirror.atlantic.net Checking for new repos for mirrors D: local action status: (0, 'rpm database not modified since last update (or package list recently updated)', {}) <-------- NOTE THIS LINE D: rpcServer: Calling XMLRPC registration.welcome_message I've noted the line of interest. >From the Spacewalk UI: Details: This action will be executed after 2/11/16 9:11:00 AM EST This action's status is: Completed. The client picked up this action on 2/11/16 9:57 AM The client completed this action on 2/11/16 9:58 AM Client execution returned "Requested packages already installed" (code 0) <--------- SAME AS REPORTED IN BUG Packages Scheduled: tzdata-2016a-1.el5.x86_64 Of course, a previous version of tzdata is installed on this machine. Is our Spacewalk database out-of-whack? I must confess that I run this script to clean up obsolete packages: https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/2012-August/msg00249.html Might that be the cause? If so, how do I remediate? Dimitri _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
