Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

[Paul-Andre Panon]

On  Saturday, September 16, 2017 2:27 AM, Robert Paschedag 
[mailto:robert.pasche...@web.de] wrote:
>Am 18. September 2017 23:38:14 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon 
>:
>>Guten abend Herr Paschedag,
>>
>>The upgrade documentation wasn't clear, so I wiped out all the 
>>channels, repos, and orphan packages using 
>>http://www.hrbac.cz/2017/06/proper-way-to-delete-channelrepositorypacka
>>ges-in-spacewalk/ (except for the last step since /srv/satellite is 
>>empty, and /var/satellite had no symlinks) Then I rebuilt my channels 
>>and repos, and re-synced the packages from the repos.
>...
>>I'll run any DB queries you might suggest to 
>>confirm.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Paul-Andre Panon
>>Senior systems administrator
>>
>>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>>
>
>No... That is exactly what I asked for. It's because the version string 
>parsing changed and therefore, ALL packages need to be removed from the 
>database and loaded in again.
>
>If you keep the packages and just upgrade to 2.7 nightly, you still have all 
>the packages with the old algorithm (and old "wrong" version strings) in the 
>database and this can cause such trouble as you described.
>
>That's why I asked.
>
>But if you already did fully wipe all packages and synced them again AND the 
>error persists, then we have to dig deeper.
>
>Regards
>Robert

If you know the Postgresql queries that the Upgrade Packages page uses to build 
the candidate package list, I can run them against our database to try to 
figure out why they aren't working as expected. 

I can also send you an rpm -q -i`rpm -q -a | fgrep "some filter you 
indicate"` if you want to verify that there isn't some incorrect package that 
is causing a problem. I do seem to be having another problem with PAM/AD 
authentication, even though our pam config files appear unchanged and our 
AD-integrated ssh logins still work, so maybe some package didn’t download and 
update somehow and that's causing API version incompatibilities. I manage the 
Spacewalk server with Spacewalk itself, and that proved a bit of a challenge 
during the jpackage repo switch for the 2.7 upgrade.

Cheers,

Paul-Andre

___
Spacewalk-list mailing list
Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list

Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

[Robert Paschedag]

Am 18. September 2017 23:38:14 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon 
<paul-andre.pa...@avigilon.com>:
>Guten abend Herr Paschedag,
>
>The upgrade documentation wasn't clear, so I wiped out all the
>channels, repos, and orphan packages using
>http://www.hrbac.cz/2017/06/proper-way-to-delete-channelrepositorypackages-in-spacewalk/
>(except for the last step since /srv/satellite is empty, and
>/var/satellite had no symlinks)
>Then I rebuilt my channels and repos, and re-synced the packages from
>the repos. And then for good measure I decided I had made a mistake,
>deleted my security and update channels with combined main/universe
>repos (same cleanup process) and rebuilt them with 1 repo/channel. So
>those channels got cleaned twice :-)
>
>I have a separate file system set up for the Spacewalk var tree, and
>the space usage had gone down significantly during the cleanups
>(90+%=>20+%), with the remaining usage consistent with the CentOS
>channels that were left untouched, so I'm fairly sure they were
>effective. However I'll run any DB queries you might suggest to
>confirm.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul-Andre Panon
>Senior systems administrator
>
>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Paschedag [mailto:robert.pasche...@web.de] 
>Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 2:27 AM
>To: spacewalk-list@redhat.com; Paul-Andre Panon
><paul-andre.pa...@avigilon.com>; spacewalk-list@redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling
>
>Am 15. September 2017 21:46:56 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon
><paul-andre.pa...@avigilon.com>:
>>We switched to Spacewalk 2.7 late last week to see how things are 
>>working out with Ubuntu and the PR500 changes. It does seem to have 
>>improved a lot but we're still seeing some issues. We have some
>systems 
>>where Spacewalk appears to recommend upgrading to packages that are 
>>actually a downgrade.
>>
>>Latest Package
>
>>  Installed
>Package
>>compiz-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb   
>
>> 
>compiz-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
>>compiz-core-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>
>> compiz-core-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>compiz-gnome-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb   
>
>>compiz-gnome-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
>
>>  compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>gcc-4.9-base-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1.amd64-deb  
>
>> gcc-4.9-base-4.9.3-0ubuntu4.amd64-deb
>>libcompizconfig0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb   
>
>> libcompizconfig0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>libdecoration0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
>
>>   
>libdecoration0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>>libgcc1-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
>
>>   libgcc1-4.9.3-0ubuntu4:1.amd64-deb
>>
>>If we select them by accident, the client notices that the packages
>are 
>>a downgrade and refuses to install them. However it does mean that we 
>>have systems being reported as having a number of outstanding patches 
>>when they are actually up to date.
>>
>>Paul-Andre Panon
>>Senior systems administrator
>>
>>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>>
>>
>>___
>>Spacewalk-list mailing list
>>Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
>>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
>Did you "fully" remove all packages from spacewalk and synced them
>again before you tried that?
>
>Robert

No... That is exactly what I asked for. It's because the version string parsing 
changed and therefore, ALL packages need to be removed from the database and 
loaded in again.

If you keep the packages and just upgrade to 2.7 nightly, you still have all 
the packages with the old algorithm (and old "wrong" version strings) in the 
database and this can cause such trouble as you described.

That's why I asked.

But if you already did fully wipe all packages and synced them again AND the 
error persists, then we have to dig deeper.

Regards
Robert

___
Spacewalk-list mailing list
Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list

Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

[Paul-Andre Panon]

Guten abend Herr Paschedag,

The upgrade documentation wasn't clear, so I wiped out all the channels, repos, 
and orphan packages using 
http://www.hrbac.cz/2017/06/proper-way-to-delete-channelrepositorypackages-in-spacewalk/
 (except for the last step since /srv/satellite is empty, and /var/satellite 
had no symlinks)
Then I rebuilt my channels and repos, and re-synced the packages from the 
repos. And then for good measure I decided I had made a mistake, deleted my 
security and update channels with combined main/universe repos (same cleanup 
process) and rebuilt them with 1 repo/channel. So those channels got cleaned 
twice :-)

I have a separate file system set up for the Spacewalk var tree, and the space 
usage had gone down significantly during the cleanups (90+%=>20+%), with the 
remaining usage consistent with the CentOS channels that were left untouched, 
so I'm fairly sure they were effective. However I'll run any DB queries you 
might suggest to confirm.

Cheers,

Paul-Andre Panon
Senior systems administrator

Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617


-Original Message-
From: Robert Paschedag [mailto:robert.pasche...@web.de] 
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 2:27 AM
To: spacewalk-list@redhat.com; Paul-Andre Panon 
<paul-andre.pa...@avigilon.com>; spacewalk-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

Am 15. September 2017 21:46:56 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon 
<paul-andre.pa...@avigilon.com>:
>We switched to Spacewalk 2.7 late last week to see how things are 
>working out with Ubuntu and the PR500 changes. It does seem to have 
>improved a lot but we're still seeing some issues. We have some systems 
>where Spacewalk appears to recommend upgrading to packages that are 
>actually a downgrade.
>
>Latest Package 
>  Installed Package
>compiz-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
>  compiz-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
>compiz-core-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
> compiz-core-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>compiz-gnome-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>compiz-gnome-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
>  compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>gcc-4.9-base-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1.amd64-deb   
> gcc-4.9-base-4.9.3-0ubuntu4.amd64-deb
>libcompizconfig0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
> libcompizconfig0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>libdecoration0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
>libdecoration0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>libgcc1-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
>   libgcc1-4.9.3-0ubuntu4:1.amd64-deb
>
>If we select them by accident, the client notices that the packages are 
>a downgrade and refuses to install them. However it does mean that we 
>have systems being reported as having a number of outstanding patches 
>when they are actually up to date.
>
>Paul-Andre Panon
>Senior systems administrator
>
>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>
>
>___
>Spacewalk-list mailing list
>Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list

Did you "fully" remove all packages from spacewalk and synced them again before 
you tried that?

Robert

___
Spacewalk-list mailing list
Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list

Re: [Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

[Robert Paschedag]

Am 15. September 2017 21:46:56 MESZ schrieb Paul-Andre Panon 
:
>We switched to Spacewalk 2.7 late last week to see how things are
>working out with Ubuntu and the PR500 changes. It does seem to have
>improved a lot but we're still seeing some issues. We have some systems
>where Spacewalk appears to recommend upgrading to packages that are
>actually a downgrade.
>
>Latest Package 
>  Installed Package
>compiz-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
>  compiz-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
>compiz-core-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
> compiz-core-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>compiz-gnome-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>compiz-gnome-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
>  compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>gcc-4.9-base-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1.amd64-deb   
> gcc-4.9-base-4.9.3-0ubuntu4.amd64-deb
>libcompizconfig0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
> libcompizconfig0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>libdecoration0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
>libdecoration0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
>libgcc1-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
>   libgcc1-4.9.3-0ubuntu4:1.amd64-deb
>
>If we select them by accident, the client notices that the packages are
>a downgrade and refuses to install them. However it does mean that we
>have systems being reported as having a number of outstanding patches
>when they are actually up to date.
>
>Paul-Andre Panon
>Senior systems administrator
>
>Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617
>
>
>___
>Spacewalk-list mailing list
>Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list

Did you "fully" remove all packages from spacewalk and synced them again before 
you tried that?

Robert

___
Spacewalk-list mailing list
Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list

[Spacewalk-list] Spacewalk and Ubuntu version handling

[Paul-Andre Panon]

We switched to Spacewalk 2.7 late last week to see how things are working out 
with Ubuntu and the PR500 changes. It does seem to have improved a lot but 
we're still seeing some issues. We have some systems where Spacewalk appears to 
recommend upgrading to packages that are actually a downgrade.

Latest Package  
Installed Package
compiz-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb 
 compiz-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.all-deb
compiz-core-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb  
 compiz-core-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
compiz-gnome-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
compiz-gnome-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
compiz-plugins-default-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
gcc-4.9-base-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1.amd64-deb
 gcc-4.9-base-4.9.3-0ubuntu4.amd64-deb
libcompizconfig0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb 
 libcompizconfig0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
libdecoration0-0.9.11+14.04.20140409-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb   
libdecoration0-0.9.11.3+14.04.20160425-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb
libgcc1-4.9-20140406-0ubuntu1:1.amd64-deb   
   libgcc1-4.9.3-0ubuntu4:1.amd64-deb

If we select them by accident, the client notices that the packages are a 
downgrade and refuses to install them. However it does mean that we have 
systems being reported as having a number of outstanding patches when they are 
actually up to date.

Paul-Andre Panon
Senior systems administrator

Office: 604.629.5182 ext 2341 Mobile: 604.679.1617


___
Spacewalk-list mailing list
Spacewalk-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list