Hi Dag, ... > But we had at least one Red Hat developer here going against your advice. > So I'd like to hear their opinion, rather than 3 times your opinion. As far as I understood Miroslav, he agrees with me in general. >> Spacewalk is the UPSTREAM for Satellite, so development is quite >> faster. Packages that are concerned to be used with Satellite could as >> well work with Spacewalk but may lack of features (as stated before). > > Sure, but even if Spacewalk would move on, people are not forced to use a > newer Spacewalk. And even in the case that they would need a newer client, > they will have to install that one anyway. So the gain is zero in case the > client would not work with the latest Spacewalk, but positive if it is > used against a compatible Spacewalk or even RHN. You should always use the client version that fits to your Spacewalk server. Since 0.7 client tools has been split and could be installed separately. And as mentioned before, if you work with Spacewalk you can easily deploy system which will be automatically subscribed to the tools channel. The only advantage would be to include rhn-setup, rhnsd and rhn-client-tools would be to allow systems which are not yet managed by Spacewalk to be registered to it. > Furthermore, at some point RHN will have to support CentOS clients as well > (not sure if they are doing that now), but if RHN Satellite is competing > with Spacewalk on functionality and Spacewalk would allow RHEL, CentOS, > SciLinux and Solaris, but RHN Satellite would not, it seems only natural > that Red Hat would be forced to change. Which means that even if not now, > future RHEL releases might again be compatible. So leaving it out doesn't > give any benefits. You could already manage CentOS with Satellite if you really want to (but I guess you dont't). As mentioned, if you really want to include them, I would 'mirror' the ones from the Spacewalk repos and put them into the CentOS-Plus repo. Best Regards Marcus