subscription-manager command in step 2 of Enabling repositories for the undercloud [1]: [stack@director ~]$ sudo subscription-manager repos --enable=rhel-8-for-x86_64-baseos-eus-rpms --enable=rhel-8-for-x86_64-appstream-eus-rpms --enable=rhel-8-for-x86_64-highavailability-eus-rpms --enable=openstack-17.1-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms --enable=fast-datapath-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms Are those rhel-8 repos correct? Should they be rhel-9? [1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/17.1-beta/html/installing_and_managing_red_hat_openstack_platform_with_director/assembly_preparing-for-director-installation#proc_enabling-repositories-for-the-undercloud_preparing-for-director-installation
The 9.2 repos from Chapter 2 should be used for that command instead. The command to switch container-tools to the RHEL 8 version can also be dropped. It should look like the 6.3 section from the 17.0 guide. https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/17.0/html-single/director_installation_and_usage/index#proc_enabling-repositories-for-the-undercloud_preparing-for-director-installation I'm not sure why the 17.1-beta guide has such different content.
The FFU guide shares this module with the Director guide, and the FFU requires the rhel 8 repos during the undercloud upgrade. I think the solution here is to conditionalize the list of repos so the rhel 9 repos appear in the Director guide, while the rhel 8 repos appear in the FFU guide.
(In reply to kgilliga from comment #2) > The FFU guide shares this module with the Director guide, and the FFU > requires the rhel 8 repos during the undercloud upgrade. I think the > solution here is to conditionalize the list of repos so the rhel 9 repos > appear in the Director guide, while the rhel 8 repos appear in the FFU guide. Update: I am going to discuss what content does/doesn't apply to the director guide with the DF writer. We will likely conditionalize the upgrade-specific content so that it only appears in the FFU guide.
*** Bug 2226656 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2231139 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***