[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Question : spacecmd softwarechannel_adderrata - cloneErrataAsOriginal

cloneErrataAsOriginal is the right way to go and should simplify that function quite a bit; I have some custom scripts at work that are using that call to manage errata and can confirm it works was expected.  IIRC that call wasn't around when I wrote spacecmd or I was retarded for not using it.


-----Original Message-----

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:17:02 +0000
From: Steven Hardy <shardy redhat com>
To: spacewalk-devel redhat com
Cc: aronparsons gmail com
Subject: [Spacewalk-devel] Question : spacecmd
	softwarechannel_adderrata - cloneErrataAsOriginal
Message-ID: <1329823022 12900 38 camel shardy csb>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi All,

I'm currently trying to fix a problem with spacemd softwarechannel_adderrata, and need some help understanding the correct way to handle this using the latest API calls:

Currently, if you try to add errata from a RHEL5 base channel into a clone channel, and the errata contains both EL5 and EL6 packages, you end up with EL6 packages in the EL5 clone channel (same happens if you publish the errata).  

I think this is essentially never what you want, and AFAICT this should be worked-around by using the cloneErrataAsOriginal API call.

However the current logic is spacecmd is this:

1 - Get list of packages in the errata
2 - do a channel.software.mergeErrata, or clone each errata using errata.clone for older API versions
3 - Add the packages found in (1) to the destination channel

I think all of these steps can essentially be replaced by a call to cloneErrataAsOriginal - is this correct?

Aron - can you also confirm if you are happy for the default behaviour of softwarechannel_adderrata to switch to using cloneErrataAsOriginal (for API versions which support it)?

I'm proposing to "fix" the softwarechannel_adderrata command, so that it uses cloneErrataAsOriginal, then leave the errata_publish option as it is, as the publishErrataAsOriginal call seems to require a clone errata anyway, and I guess it may be useful to have the capability to do a "raw" publish in some circumstances.

Any thoughts or information much appreciated!



Spacewalk-devel mailing list
Spacewalk-devel redhat com

End of Spacewalk-devel Digest, Vol 45, Issue 15

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]