Having the packages in centos would allow us to use the same
kickstarts as we use on tuv 6.0 deployments. The spacewalk-client
repos are a bit unstable also so it is nice to have the vendor
supported version of the tools on the base os. It usually works
against most versions of the server without bothering to install the
spacewalk-client repos. Also last I checked the spacewalk-client repo
brings in dependencies on epel, so then we have to drag the that repo
into our kickstarts as well.


On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi Miroslav,
On 07/11/2011 10:36 AM, Miroslav Such? wrote:
and the conclusion was that we will leave CentOS 5 as is (i.e. do not
add there this packages) but in CentOS 6 this packages will not be removed.
I tried to raise this question again, and the general feeling that
everyone got was : spacewalk users tend to setup their own custom repo's
and therefore dont rely on the *rhn* code in the distro. Also spacewalk
users are mostly using newer code than whats in the distro, so leaving
those packages in does not help.

If there was to be some sort of a clear reason as to why these packages
should be included, I personally dont have any objections to
re-introducing them ( we can do it into Extras/ for 6.0 and reinstate
them into the 6.1/os distro ). So if we can get some level of agreement
with the community at large that these rpms help, we can look at doing
the work.

It would also help if someone was to do a code audit and make sure these
*rhn* rpms:

- have no TM issues

- carry no Red Hat hosted dependancies

- have nothing that might indicate to a user that they are running RHEL
or a related product

- Have no by-default action that access or tries to access a .redhat.com
hosted resource

And finally : ?report those on the bugs.c.o instance ( so open a report
at bugs.c.o against each srpm name, and either indicate a change is
needed or state that no-change-is-needed )


- KB
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel at centos.org

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 3 of 6 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcentos-devel @
postedJul 11, '11 at 5:36a
activeJul 19, '11 at 6:15a



site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase