Bug 1376809

Summary: katello-installer not replaced by satellite-installer in installation guide
Product: Red Hat Satellite Reporter: Fred van Zwieten <fvzwieten>
Component: Docs Install GuideAssignee: Stephen Wadeley <swadeley>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Andrew Dahms <adahms>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 6.2.0CC: fvzwieten, swadeley
Target Milestone: Unspecified   
Target Release: Unused   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-09-26 11:50:16 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Fred van Zwieten 2016-09-16 12:48:43 UTC
Document URL: 
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-satellite/6.2/single/installation-guide

Section Number and Name: 
search for "katello-installer" (5 hits)

Describe the issue:
katello-installer is replaced by satellite-installer.

Suggestions for improvement:
replace katello-installer by satellite-installer

Additional information:

Comment 1 Stephen Wadeley 2016-09-16 13:01:14 UTC
Hello

katello-installer is the command to use when you have a 6.1 system and 6.1 system are mentioned in the upgrade procedures.

Did you check the context of those commands?

I found the first two in "Upgrading Satellite Server" before you disable the 6.1 repos, while you are still checking the system is up to date.


In "Upgrading To Disconnected Satellite Server version 6.2" there is one

katello-installer --capsule-dns-managed=false --capsule-dhcp-managed=false


There are two in "Upgrading a Self-Registered Satellite Server"
before you disable the 6.1 repos, while you are still checking the system is up to date.

I suggest this is NOTABUG

The self-reg procedure was the last to be worked on, so its a bit better, and I have a bug to review them all for consistency.

Bug 1367674 – Review upgrade procedures

Comment 2 Fred van Zwieten 2016-09-26 11:50:16 UTC
I agree. Sorry for the noise.