[Spacewalk-list] CentOS 5.2 - a warning]

[m.roth2006 at rcn.com]

John,

>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:50:49 +0100 (BST)
>From: John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk>  
>Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] CentOS 5.2 - a warning]  
>To: "spacewalk-list at redhat.com" <spacewalk-list at redhat.com>
>On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, m.roth2006 at rcn.com wrote:
<snip>
>This is where I reckon you're wrong.  It's not the install of the i686
>package, it's the uninstall (that I'm guessing has happened) of the x86_64
>package that caused the problem.  But I really am guessing.
<snip>

My guess is that the glibc i686 got installed, and that's what created the problem.

>>> Yep, I had noted that...  I really wouldn't run against 0.4 out of choice.
>>> I used 0.1/2/3/5.  0.4 was fun for testing.
>>
>> Not long after I walked in the door where I've been contracting, they told
>> me to do Spacewalk. I went to the site, and 0.4 was the latest, greatest,
>> and stable version. I saw nothing that suggested it was a development
>> version, like the way the Linux kernel x.<odd> == dev, and x.<even> ==
>> stable.
>
>I'd argue there hasn't been a 'stable' release of spacewalk yet, they're all
>devel releases.  If you're not willing to get mucky, you shouldn't be using
>spacewalk.  If you'd been told to use spacewalk by people who didn't get that,
>it doesn't change things.

I certainly have no intention of arguing *that* puppy. If it were up to me, I wouldn't use something for production that wasn't at least 1.0.1 <g>
>
<snip>
>But you said you installed kernel.i686 packages, which aren't in x86_64.  I
>point you to my stock 5.2 installed desktop machine:

And I did correct myself - there were some devel and other 686 kernel packages, but no kernel-2.6...i686.rpm.
>
>$ rpm -q --qf %{NAME}-%{ARCH}\\n glibc
>glibc-x86_64
>glibc-i686
>
>Having i686 packages installed does not destroy your machine and make the
>world cave into a black hole.  This is just something you *have* to accept.

It will, if that's the only glibc something else sees.
>
>I can't tell you what broke your setup from a distance, all 

I suggest taking a gander at the link I provided for the runaway loop error I got.
<snip>
>I hope you're not about to suggest that installing i386 packages on a x86_64
>box is wrong, else we're completely lost.

Again, no argument.

     mark