> -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Buckingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 July 2008 14:42 > To: Covil, K (Kim) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] Exclude Packages > > Covil, K (Kim) wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spacewalk-list- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Miroslav Suchý > >> Sent: 23 July 2008 09:45 > >> > >> Frank Paulick wrote: > >> > >>> another question i have is if there is a way to compare systems > >>> regarding the installed packages ? > >>> so far i only found the verify option. > >>> my problem is that i have a few systems (all centos 4 i386) where i > >>> would like to know which packages need to be installed to have them > >>> > >> all > >> > >>> in the same state > >>> > >> There is tab Profiles, just beside Verify tab (System > >> detail->software->Packages->Profiles). > >> It do exactly what you want and as bonus you can name and store the > >> profile. > >> > > > > I haven't checked, but beware there was/is a bug in Satellite where > it struggled to compare x86_64 RHEL 4 systems as it couldn't determine > the architecture of the packages when both the 32bit and 64bit versions > were installed. This I believe is a bug in up2date on RHEL 4 not > reporting the architectures with a package update as RHEL 5 seems to > understand the architectures and the database structures to hold the > architectures are in place. > > > > The web interface also doesn't do a very good job of showing the > architecture of a package and this is a common problem throughout for > dual architectured machines like x86_64 boxes. > > > > Regards, > > > > Kim > > > Kim, > > There is still an issue in Spacewalk server with the profile comparison > function for x86_64 systems that have both x86_64 and i386 packages. > Essentially, the profiles do not currently store package architecture > information; therefore, if an i386 package is installed, a profile is > created, the i386 package is removed and then the x86_64 package is > installed, subsequent profile comparisons will not show any differences > for that package; however, it should show that the profile had "package > X of type i386" but now has "package X of type x86_64". > > This is one of the areas that we are currently working on and are in > the > process of identifying and documenting server side issues with handling > the varying package architecture types. Modifications will be targeted > for future releases of Spacewalk. Currently, we'd like to target > Spacewalk 0.4 and have noted it in the Roadmap as Multi-Arch > Enhancements. > > cheers, > Brad
Good to hear that it is on the list to be fixed in Spacewalk. We raised this issue with Red Hat support against Satellite in December last year, but have heard nothing back other than that 1st line support was able to replicate the issue. It was a cause of major internal political problems for us here as it meant we were unable to use Satellite to roll-back a server to a previous snapshot as we had told our internal customers we should be able to do and as Satellite documentation said we should be able to do. We had to restore from backup instead, not good for internal publicity for Satellite. Regards, Kim _____________________________________________________________ This email (including any attachments to it) is confidential, legally privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient only. If you have received this email in error, please advise us immediately and delete it. You are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the viruses in this email or attachments. We exclude any liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided in this email or its attachments, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If this email contains an offer, that should be considered as an invitation to treat. _____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
