Bug 562722 - RHNS530: 'Sync to System Profile' fails to add packages, if you remove few packages from the Profile Sync
Summary: RHNS530: 'Sync to System Profile' fails to add packages, if you remove few pa...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 572277
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Satellite 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Server
Version: 530
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Justin Sherrill
QA Contact: Red Hat Satellite QA List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-02-08 07:08 UTC by Issue Tracker
Modified: 2010-06-02 17:28 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-19 09:04:42 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 4 Vishal Gaikwad 2010-02-08 07:15:05 UTC
Public Summary:

Package profile sync not working as expected. When syncing a profile with an
existing system which has difference of custom and RHEL packages - then package
profile sync doesn't work. It fails with message "There are no packages to
sync"

How Reproducible
Always

Steps to reproduce :
Select a system profile ->Software -> Profile ->  *Compare to System* -> 
Select a system -> Compare

Select all the packages [rhel and custom] -> Schedule sync 

As we are having custom package which is not pushed to satellite it displays
those custom packages and  gives 2 options :

"Remove listed packages from Sync" or "Subscribe to channel"

Clicking on "Remove listed packages from sysnc" 

Observed Behavior
Sync process exits the sync process saying "No packages for Sync"

Expected Behaviour :
It should remove those custom packages from the list and move ahead with the
sync of remaining packages.

Comment 5 Vishal Gaikwad 2010-02-08 07:18:46 UTC
Workaround:

A workaround is to create a Stored Profile for the system to which you would like to compare the packages. Sync Packages to Stored Profile work fine.

Comment 7 Tomas Lestach 2010-05-19 09:04:42 UTC
The fix for this problem was shipped in errata:

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0369.html

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 572277 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.