Hi, On 21/01/10 14:02, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> Secondly, what is the release timeline for these client tools into RHEL >> 4/5 compared with whats in the spacewalk client tools repo at the moment > They are compatible. I.e you can use both to Spacewalk and it will work. ok, that basically means that most people dont *need* to use the spacewalk client, and can stick with whats in the EL codebase for most of their work. ( ~ my understanding ) > How can these packages make life "harder or obscure" for people who dont > use spacewalk? Especially if these packages will not talk to > rhn.redhat.com by default. A very large number of pople who use centos, do so with little or no previous understand of linux or even the basics of systems management - we need to keep those people in mind as well. The problem that we have had, in the past, is that installing yum-rhn-plugin brought in loads of rhn\* packages as well, which in turn would cause traffic to rhn.r.c. Also, given that rhn itself is a rhel connected service, the view we took was that there is no need for that functionality in the distro at all. Traditionally, the approach has been to remove all rhn references and packages ( as much as can be done without maiming any significant functionality ). This is how it worked for CentOS-3/4/5. Having said that, there is no reason why we cant change things if there is a real benefit in doing so. Let me import the sources into a shared setup, and we can workout a patchset that is needed. We can then target this for 5.5 inclusion if its considered worth doing and does not cause any issues. -- Karanbir Singh kbsingh at karan.org | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc