Re: Supported versions

[ On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 15:54:36 (-0500), John Berninger wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Current-server] Supported versions
>
 > The main reason we decided to rebuild the packages versus using this
 > methodology was the upgrade of up2date / rhn_register case.  With the
 > rebuilt packages, you can see that you've gone back to Red Hat provided
 > configs when you do an rpm -qa and you see only the original Red Hat
 > names, since the newer RH versions supercede and replace the rebuilt
 > packages.  With the additional package that you're putting in, you still
 > have your custom package installed, but the install of the newer RH
 > packages wipes out the configs and you can't tell that easily.

Until now, I was hoping that the format of the rhn config files was
reasonably stable. This is why "my" package contains cron jobs and
boot scripts to re-install my config files in case the
up2date/rhn_register packages are updated.

 >         With a small enough set of client machines, this really isn't a
 > problem, but it could get ugly for you as the number of clients grows.

In the light of the recent RH updates, I might really have
overestimated the stability of the config file format. Maybe I'll
convert back to "your" approach :-)

 >         A final note on Current / up2date versus apt-get:  Current still
 > has the same limitation that most apt proponents find objectionable on
 > true RHN - it only checks a single source for updated packages.  Apt can
 > check multiple authoritative sources, so just make sure you've got your
 > flak jacket on when you go into battle.  :)

Yeah I know. This is one degreee of freedom up2date is currently
lacking. For me, this is not a problem. Actually, I _want_ all updates
to go through one single source. But then, I certainly have a
"coorporate" background.

Anyway, thanks for all your efforts!

CU, Joe