On 2016-02-12 15:06 +0000, Dimitri Yioulos wrote:
-----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
Hello,
I'm not sure if the outputs you have sent matches. According to
timestampt in `rhn_check -vv` output, it was executed at 09:07:36, but
text you have copy&pasted from Spacewalk webUI says 9:57.
Cold you please try with osad stopped?:
1. client# service osad stop
2. on Spacewalk schedule package upgrade
3. client# rhn_check -vv
And if output seems reasonable similar to whats in refferenced bug,
try with change from:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302198#c1
1. client# service osad stop
2. on Spacewalk schedule package upgrade
3. client# cp /usr/share/rhn/actions/packages.py{,.ORIG}
4. client# vim /usr/share/rhn/actions/packages.py # add these 3
lines, make sure to preserve indentation
5. client# rhn_check -vv
6. client# cp /usr/share/rhn/actions/packages.py{.ORIG,}
Also please provide info about currently installed tzdata package:
client# rpm -q tzdata --qf "%{NAME}-%{EPOCH}:%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n"
and package you are trying to update to:
spacewalk# rpm -qp /where/is/tzdata-...rpm --qf
"%{NAME}-%{EPOCH}:%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n"
Thank you in advance,
Jan
--
Jan Hutar Systems Management QA
[email protected] Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
