[CentOS-devel] Why are Spacewalk packages removed from CentOS?

Marcus Moeller

mail at marcus-moeller.de
Tue May 18 07:14:12 UTC 2010

Hi all.

@Luc, I have not noticed you on any Spacewalk discussions before and
from what you have written, I guess you have not (yet) fully
understood how Spacewalk works.

If you provision from Spacewalk (and that's what it's meant to be
for), you can simply 'attach' the Spacewalk tools channel during
installation which will make the necessary tools available.

>> After filing a bug (http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4315) Karan made
>> me aware of a discussion held in January 2010. There was no conclusion,
>> no decision.
> IIRC there *was* conclusion.
> For CentOS 5.x keep status quo and do not change anything. And for
> CentOS 6.0 (when it will be ready) keep those package in CentOS (or in
> other words, do not remove them when picking up packages from RHEL).

The major concern I had was that this would lead to multiple packages
with different versions, as the 'CentOS' client tools will then be the
ones from RHEL and the Spacewalk tools channel will contain the
updated ones. (I had a few other concerns but I am not going to repeat

The only option I see  (besides keeping things as they are, which is
the best imho) is to include ALL the latest Spacewalk client tools in
CentOS (which will perhaps break binary compatibility but could be
OK). This would obsolete the need of a dedicated Spacewalk tools
repository, too (we have to talk to the SL guys if we would like to do

Russ once complained that this might break the possibility to register
CentOS against Satellite, but this will never be a good and working
solution for CentOS imho (Here also, if you don't know why, please
compare features and workflow of both products).

The next thing we have to be aware of, then would be EPEL compatibility

>> @Miroslav and the other RHN Sat/Spacewalk developers: Can you promise to
>> announce incompatible changes early enough? If yes, CentOS can include
>> the stuff immediately.
> Packages in RHEL will be *always* backward and forward compatible. We
> are not promising the same for Fedora, but for RHEL yes.

So why are there different client tools channels per Spacewalk
version, then (which is only one on Statellite btw.)?

Best Regards

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list