We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6Server/
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata, and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:01, John Griffin jgriffin@samhealth.org wrote:
We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6Server/
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
I need more information like what you are exactly seeing. The conntrack-tools is in the repository and can be downloaded and installed via yum and reposync.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata, and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
Hello Stephen,
Yes, we have the conntrack-tools in our Red Hat Satellite repository, and we can apply it outside of our Satellite process; by manually copying the rpm to each server and installing outside of our process.
The issue is the interworking of the metatdata in the conntrack-tools RPM and Red Hat Satellite date filters for Content Views. Not sure how familiar you are with Red Hat Satellite, but the data filters are the primary method used to create a cyclical patching schedule and thus patch sets based on date.
In Red Hat Satellite, if I specify any date inclusion (Like from January 1, 1970 - October 12, 2018) and point it at the EPEL6 repository the filter does not pick up the conntrack-tools. I opened support case with Red Hat, and with their assistance we have a work around, where we don't specify any Satellite date filters for the EPEL repositories (i.e. Get Everything no matter when released) and yes still keep the Satellite date filters on the official Red Hat repositories used to create the combined Satellite content view.
However this work-around does not allow us to recreate a patch content view of EPEL product or patches of any date other than 'today'. Without a date filter we get all EPEL content and patches. This does not work with our Patching paradigm, as we base patch sets on Date. We then use life-cycle management to promote a patch set to Production after it has been vetted on Dev then Test.
Red Hat does not support EPEL, and indicated this is not a Satellite issue but a RPM metadata issue with EPEL release process.
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:14 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:01, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
I need more information like what you are exactly seeing. The conntrack-tools is in the repository and can be downloaded and installed via yum and reposync.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata, and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedorap
roject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
To report this email as SPAM, please forward it to spam@forcepoint.commailto:spam@forcepoint.com
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:46, John Griffin jgriffin@samhealth.org wrote:
Hello Stephen,
Yes, we have the conntrack-tools in our Red Hat Satellite repository, and we can apply it outside of our Satellite process; by manually copying the rpm to each server and installing outside of our process.
The issue is the interworking of the metatdata in the conntrack-tools RPM and Red Hat Satellite date filters for Content Views. Not sure how familiar you are with Red Hat Satellite, but the data filters are the primary method used to create a cyclical patching schedule and thus patch sets based on date.
In Red Hat Satellite, if I specify any date inclusion (Like from January 1, 1970 - October 12, 2018) and point it at the EPEL6 repository the filter does not pick up the conntrack-tools. I opened support case with Red Hat, and with their assistance we have a work around, where we don't specify any Satellite date filters for the EPEL repositories (i.e. Get Everything no matter when released) and yes still keep the Satellite date filters on the official Red Hat repositories used to create the combined Satellite content view.
However this work-around does not allow us to recreate a patch content view of EPEL product or patches of any date other than 'today'. Without a date filter we get all EPEL content and patches. This does not work with our Patching paradigm, as we base patch sets on Date. We then use life-cycle management to promote a patch set to Production after it has been vetted on Dev then Test.
Red Hat does not support EPEL, and indicated this is not a Satellite issue but a RPM metadata issue with EPEL release process.
I will check but I am not sure it is a problem we can solve quickly as I don't know how Satellite categorizes dates currently. Do you also mirror anything from other non Red Hat Network repositories and do they have the problem also? [I am mostly looking to see if we are not setting something up we should or not]
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Best Regards,
[image: cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0]
*John Griffin *|* Infrastructure Architect*
815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330
P 541-768-4707
*jgriffin@samhealth.org jgriffin@samhealth.org*
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:14 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:01, John Griffin jgriffin@samhealth.org wrote:
We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools
x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based
on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a
specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
I need more information like what you are exactly seeing. The conntrack-tools is in the repository and can be downloaded and installed via yum and reposync.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata,
and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedorap
roject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
To report this email as SPAM, please forward it to spam@forcepoint.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
Hello Stephen,
We mirror the EPEL5 and EPEL7 repositories, but I really don’t know if there are other issues with those or EPEL6. The only reason I stumbled upon this one was due to the fact that the munin update in Sept 2018 now requires conntrack-tools. There may be others, and this also maybe be the only one.
I will request from RH the technical details they use when applying date filters in Satellite, maybe with that I can scan the other RPM’s in our mirrors for other hits.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
From: Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:04 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:46, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
Hello Stephen,
Yes, we have the conntrack-tools in our Red Hat Satellite repository, and we can apply it outside of our Satellite process; by manually copying the rpm to each server and installing outside of our process.
The issue is the interworking of the metatdata in the conntrack-tools RPM and Red Hat Satellite date filters for Content Views. Not sure how familiar you are with Red Hat Satellite, but the data filters are the primary method used to create a cyclical patching schedule and thus patch sets based on date.
In Red Hat Satellite, if I specify any date inclusion (Like from January 1, 1970 - October 12, 2018) and point it at the EPEL6 repository the filter does not pick up the conntrack-tools. I opened support case with Red Hat, and with their assistance we have a work around, where we don't specify any Satellite date filters for the EPEL repositories (i.e. Get Everything no matter when released) and yes still keep the Satellite date filters on the official Red Hat repositories used to create the combined Satellite content view.
However this work-around does not allow us to recreate a patch content view of EPEL product or patches of any date other than 'today'. Without a date filter we get all EPEL content and patches. This does not work with our Patching paradigm, as we base patch sets on Date. We then use life-cycle management to promote a patch set to Production after it has been vetted on Dev then Test.
Red Hat does not support EPEL, and indicated this is not a Satellite issue but a RPM metadata issue with EPEL release process.
I will check but I am not sure it is a problem we can solve quickly as I don't know how Satellite categorizes dates currently. Do you also mirror anything from other non Red Hat Network repositories and do they have the problem also? [I am mostly looking to see if we are not setting something up we should or not]
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.commailto:smooge@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:14 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:01, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
I need more information like what you are exactly seeing. The conntrack-tools is in the repository and can be downloaded and installed via yum and reposync.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata, and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedorap
roject.orghttp://roject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
To report this email as SPAM, please forward it to spam@forcepoint.commailto:spam@forcepoint.com
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
-- Stephen J Smoogen.
Hello Stephen,
Here is RH’s reply on the query as to how RH Satellite parses RPMs for date base filters.
Hi John, I got some information for you. Errata filter based on date does not scan RPMs, but scan errata (update or create) date and exclude/include all rpms which this specific errata contains. Does this help in the process?
Re: [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
From: John Griffin Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 8:34 AM To: EPEL Development List epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
Hello Stephen,
We mirror the EPEL5 and EPEL7 repositories, but I really don’t know if there are other issues with those or EPEL6. The only reason I stumbled upon this one was due to the fact that the munin update in Sept 2018 now requires conntrack-tools. There may be others, and this also maybe be the only one.
I will request from RH the technical details they use when applying date filters in Satellite, maybe with that I can scan the other RPM’s in our mirrors for other hits.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.commailto:smooge@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:04 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:46, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
Hello Stephen,
Yes, we have the conntrack-tools in our Red Hat Satellite repository, and we can apply it outside of our Satellite process; by manually copying the rpm to each server and installing outside of our process.
The issue is the interworking of the metatdata in the conntrack-tools RPM and Red Hat Satellite date filters for Content Views. Not sure how familiar you are with Red Hat Satellite, but the data filters are the primary method used to create a cyclical patching schedule and thus patch sets based on date.
In Red Hat Satellite, if I specify any date inclusion (Like from January 1, 1970 - October 12, 2018) and point it at the EPEL6 repository the filter does not pick up the conntrack-tools. I opened support case with Red Hat, and with their assistance we have a work around, where we don't specify any Satellite date filters for the EPEL repositories (i.e. Get Everything no matter when released) and yes still keep the Satellite date filters on the official Red Hat repositories used to create the combined Satellite content view.
However this work-around does not allow us to recreate a patch content view of EPEL product or patches of any date other than 'today'. Without a date filter we get all EPEL content and patches. This does not work with our Patching paradigm, as we base patch sets on Date. We then use life-cycle management to promote a patch set to Production after it has been vetted on Dev then Test.
Red Hat does not support EPEL, and indicated this is not a Satellite issue but a RPM metadata issue with EPEL release process.
I will check but I am not sure it is a problem we can solve quickly as I don't know how Satellite categorizes dates currently. Do you also mirror anything from other non Red Hat Network repositories and do they have the problem also? [I am mostly looking to see if we are not setting something up we should or not]
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.commailto:smooge@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:14 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:01, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
I need more information like what you are exactly seeing. The conntrack-tools is in the repository and can be downloaded and installed via yum and reposync.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata, and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedorap
roject.orghttp://roject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
To report this email as SPAM, please forward it to spam@forcepoint.commailto:spam@forcepoint.com
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
-- Stephen J Smoogen.
Hello Stephen,
What else can I do or provide to move this issue along.
Best regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
From: John Griffin Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 8:47 AM To: EPEL Development List epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
Hello Stephen,
Here is RH’s reply on the query as to how RH Satellite parses RPMs for date base filters.
Hi John, I got some information for you. Errata filter based on date does not scan RPMs, but scan errata (update or create) date and exclude/include all rpms which this specific errata contains. Does this help in the process?
Re: [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
From: John Griffin Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 8:34 AM To: EPEL Development List <epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
Hello Stephen,
We mirror the EPEL5 and EPEL7 repositories, but I really don’t know if there are other issues with those or EPEL6. The only reason I stumbled upon this one was due to the fact that the munin update in Sept 2018 now requires conntrack-tools. There may be others, and this also maybe be the only one.
I will request from RH the technical details they use when applying date filters in Satellite, maybe with that I can scan the other RPM’s in our mirrors for other hits.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.commailto:smooge@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:04 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:46, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
Hello Stephen,
Yes, we have the conntrack-tools in our Red Hat Satellite repository, and we can apply it outside of our Satellite process; by manually copying the rpm to each server and installing outside of our process.
The issue is the interworking of the metatdata in the conntrack-tools RPM and Red Hat Satellite date filters for Content Views. Not sure how familiar you are with Red Hat Satellite, but the data filters are the primary method used to create a cyclical patching schedule and thus patch sets based on date.
In Red Hat Satellite, if I specify any date inclusion (Like from January 1, 1970 - October 12, 2018) and point it at the EPEL6 repository the filter does not pick up the conntrack-tools. I opened support case with Red Hat, and with their assistance we have a work around, where we don't specify any Satellite date filters for the EPEL repositories (i.e. Get Everything no matter when released) and yes still keep the Satellite date filters on the official Red Hat repositories used to create the combined Satellite content view.
However this work-around does not allow us to recreate a patch content view of EPEL product or patches of any date other than 'today'. Without a date filter we get all EPEL content and patches. This does not work with our Patching paradigm, as we base patch sets on Date. We then use life-cycle management to promote a patch set to Production after it has been vetted on Dev then Test.
Red Hat does not support EPEL, and indicated this is not a Satellite issue but a RPM metadata issue with EPEL release process.
I will check but I am not sure it is a problem we can solve quickly as I don't know how Satellite categorizes dates currently. Do you also mirror anything from other non Red Hat Network repositories and do they have the problem also? [I am mostly looking to see if we are not setting something up we should or not]
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Best Regards, [cid:image005.jpg@01D24A1F.439697B0] John Griffin | Infrastructure Architect 815 NW 9th Street, Ste 221 | Corvallis, OR 97330 P 541-768-4707 jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.commailto:smooge@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:14 PM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL6 conntrack-tools-0.9.13-3.el6.x86_64 metadata possibly incorrect
WARNING: This email originated from outside of SHS. DO NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 16:01, John Griffin <jgriffin@samhealth.orgmailto:jgriffin@samhealth.org> wrote:
We now use Red Hat Satellite 6.3 and have it synchronizing to
Recent updates to munin-node and munin-common require conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6.
The conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 was release in May 2014, based on rpm -qip, and is in our synchronized EPEL content view on our Satellite.
We use content view date filters to only select errata (patches) up to a specific date (based on our patch cycle) and publish new content views based on said dates. We stumbled upon the issue that the conntrack-tools x86_64 0.9.13-3.el6 package not being included in the content view, even though it existed in the repository, and our date based content filter should have encompassed the release date of the package. This caused yum update to fail for the munin updates, as the prerequisite could not be satisfied.
I need more information like what you are exactly seeing. The conntrack-tools is in the repository and can be downloaded and installed via yum and reposync.
Curious if there is indeed something amiss with this packages metadata, and also if other EPEL packages suffer the same fate. We are concerned that we will not be able to rely on the veracity of EPEL packages and will have to mitigate this in some fashion.
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedorap
roject.orghttp://roject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
To report this email as SPAM, please forward it to spam@forcepoint.commailto:spam@forcepoint.com
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.orgmailto:epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
-- Stephen J Smoogen.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
John Griffin -
Stephen John Smoogen