On 10/16/17 21:25, Paul-Andre Panon wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 12:02 AM, Robert Paschedag
[mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
Am 14. Oktober 2017 01:38:59 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon
<[email protected]>:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:17:12, Robert Paschedag
Hi Robert,
I can confirm that. I've been experiencing the same thing with Ubuntu
14 clients last month and Ubuntu 16 clients this month. The python
packages had updated and attempts to update kept on cycling through
with the same packages identified as needing updates, until I went
through and manually copied the Multi-Arch: allowed settings for the
packages that had it (looking at the Packages on the Ubuntu repos). I
was thinking of doing what you propose but I've been to busy to dig
into the code to try to add the Multi-Arch field to the copied data. I
look forward to your changes.
Paul-Andre Panon
Senior systems administrator
Hi Paul-Andre,
the big problem is... "allowed" is not the only value for Multi-Arch. In Debian stretch
"main" repo, there are 8979 Packages with "Multi-Arch" header. No way to do that by hand.
Agreed, but so far I have only had problems with packages where the missing Multi-Arch value is
"allowed". Maybe I've just been lucky though. The annoying thing is that, even with the ~couple
dozen cases of "Multi-Arch: allowed" in the Ubuntu main and universe repos (mostly from python and
the gcc toolchain), every sync wipes out your last set of manual fixes. When I ran into the problem, I found
the clue to a workaround in matus' Jan 30th 2015 comment at
http://www.devops-blog.net/spacewalk/registering-ubuntu-and-debian-servers-with-spacewalk, so this isn't a
new issue. I'm not happy with his kludgy "fix" though since it also winds up adding that property
to many packages where it doesn't apply.
Yeah. I'm also using that workaround from the bugzilla report about the
missing Multi-Arch headers and in jessie, this really works quite good.
Now, with "stretch", this is just a nightmare. I was so happy, that now
in SW2.7, the debian version string parsing has been improved and now
debian has "improved" "apt". But that improvement somehow throws a big
stick between your legs while you're running at max speed, causing you
to crash and break with your face on the ground :-P
Another thing. I hope you can give me a hint. Apt now tries (or even just generates)
"binary-all" package files for all "amd64" repos, the client has subscribed.
How can I stop that? All "architecture" settings are set to "amd64". Don't know, where
this *feature* came from but it looks like breaking my "workaround" I'm trying to implement.
I'm not sure, we've only been using the 64-bit amd64 images, not the 32-bit
i386 images. When I look at the Packages file on the binary-amd64 Ubuntu
directory from the closest mirror, there doesn't seem to be a package with
something other than Architecture: amd64 . Since we've been all 64-bit it
hasn't been an issue for us, and maybe that's why I'm not having any issues
with other possible values of Multi-Arch as well.
Thanks
Robert
Paul-Andre Panon
Senior systems administrator
Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
I found the "error". It is really because of the "missing" "Release"
file. If this is found, and there is an "Architectures:" header, the new
"apt" will download the Packages for this architectures. If the
"Release" is missing, "apt" will download the Packages for the clients
configured "architectures" + "all".
This is a new behaviour.
But I think, that this is not my main error. Because I'm still using
Steve Meier's "debian sync" tool to download and import the debian
packages, I modified that to create a "temporary" file with the
"package" name and possible "multi-arch" header, which I can insert,
after SW has created his own "Packages" file.
But this does not yet work 100%, because there are sometimes more than
one package with exact same name. I have to improve that and keep trying.
Really the best thing would be, if the "Multi-Arch" header would be
added to the database. If I'm right, this header is already "present",
while the .deb files gets parsed but it just gets ignored. And I don't
know, how much work and modification is needed to fully implement this
header to every .deb package.
Would be cool, if the main developers of SW could look into that issue
and I'll really try to support them with as much information as possible
to get this fixed.
As final information. This is not an error in SW. This is "an
improvement" in Debian 9, which most of us (and I think most of SW
developers) just did not get but its a major problem to "manage" debian
9 with spacewalk.
Robert
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
