On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Scott Henson <shenson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:01:38 -0500, Justin Sherrill
<jsherril(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A bug was reported in Red Hat Satellite (which uses cobbler) stating
> that running cobbler sync fails on s390x because syslinux does not
> include the needed boot files for i386 & x86_64.
>
> We have a couple of patches to resolve the issue. One of them simply
> ignores files such as /usr/lib/syslinux/pxelinux.0 if it isn't found,
> instead of throwing an error. The other will only try to copy those
> files if /usr/lib/syslinux actually exists. We aren't really sure what
> cobbler users/developers would prefer, so we though we'd ask cobbler-devel.
>
> Here is the bugzilla with the relevant discussion and patches:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580072
>
> Thoughts?
Cobbler has 'cobbler get-loaders' to do this. It downloads the data off
of a fedorapeople page. The big problem with doing cross platform
booting is that there is no where else for a x86 machine to get ppc or
s390 binaries and vice versus. So, the get-loaders command was created
to get around this problem.
I would think that Satellite would want to ship these files in an RPM
along with satellite. Seems like a satellite would have differing
requirements with respect to retrieving files from a fedorapeople page.
--
Scott Henson
Red Hat CIS Operator
WVU Alum BSAE/BSME
Is there any reason Cobbler can't ship these loaders in its own rpm or
via sub-package? (copyright, file size, etc.) Expecting users of
Cobbler to hit
fedorapeople.org for pieces of the software strikes me
as a sub-optimal design and doesn't account for those who have strict
firewalls or proxies or no connection at all between their
provisioning equipment and the internet.
I suspect the ideal solution is keeping all things that are required
to run Cobbler in all supported configurations in one place; for
rpm-based installs, that place tends to be within the rpm. An optional
sub-package(s) sounds like the right answer to me. In the interest of
having support centralized as far upstream as possible (i.e. in
Cobbler, not just in Satellite or Spacewalk), having packages named
something along the lines of "cobbler-s390", "cobbler-ppc", etc. is
probably ideal, but even just a single "cobbler-other-arches"
sub-package might be sufficient.
---Brett.