[Spacewalk-list] Mr. 500 here... more info

[m.roth2006 at rcn.com]

Mairin,

>Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:00:47 -0500
>From: Máirín Duffy <duffy at redhat.com>  
>m.roth2006 at rcn.com wrote:
>> 
>>> What is in this template? That seems like a good place to investigate. 
>>> If it's not CentOSSS @Base, then the problem may lie in diff between the 
>>> template you're using and @Base.
>> 
>> Not sure - but again, let me note that I believe it's *exactly* the same that's running on the test system, that spacewalk .1 is running happily in.
>> 
>
>You "believe" but do you "know" ? :)

Ya got me! <falls to floor>
Test (spacewalk .1):
 uname -a
Linux chi-test-spacewalk 2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jun 25 13:49:24 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Prod (the new one):
uname -a
Linux corp-spwk-chi-02.trustwave.com 2.6.18-92.1.13.el5 #1 SMP Wed Sep 24 19:33:52 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

However, lsb_release -a tells me that they're the same. So, looks like minor upgrades. But if I have to assume that spacewalk is that fragile, or that a major change that breaks thing that are built for that o/s, *and* if the rpm requirements will only allow it if it matches, that there are some hidden things, I'm in deep do-do. I'm not really up to debugging the full o/s....

     mark, going to see what announcements say about the 
             newer kernel
But now, if I am forced to assume that