Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 951799

Summary:	[RFE] provide a script configuring necessary RHN channels for RHEV-M installation
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager	Reporter:	Tomas Dosek <tdosek>
Component:	ovirt-engine-setup	Assignee:	Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Pavel Stehlik <pstehlik>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	3.1.3	CC:	alonbl, bazulay, bsettle, dfediuck, didi, iheim, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, sbonazzo, tdosek, ylavi
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature, Patch
Target Release:	---	Flags:	sherold: Triaged+
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	integration
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-10-02 14:55:15 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:
Embargoed:

Description Tomas Dosek 2013-04-13 07:55:51 UTC

Description of problem:

During analysis of installation and upgrade issues most of the customer cases seemed to be caused by either wrong or totally broken configuration of RHN channels.

This can be pretty easily coded into a shell script that would be easily executed by customers when preparing the installation.

Comment 2 Itamar Heim 2013-11-30 19:22:43 UTC

we've never dived into channel/repo configuration.
we would never be able to cover this correctly for satellite users for example.
I think a better approach to resolve installation issues is by providing the engine as a pre-installed virtual appliance (which would still require correct channel configuration, but not as a gating item for initial deployment.

andrew - thoughts?

Comment 3 Andrew Cathrow 2013-12-08 07:55:21 UTC

(In reply to Itamar Heim from comment #2)
> we've never dived into channel/repo configuration.
> we would never be able to cover this correctly for satellite users for
> example.
> I think a better approach to resolve installation issues is by providing the
> engine as a pre-installed virtual appliance (which would still require
> correct channel configuration, but not as a gating item for initial
> deployment.
> 
> andrew - thoughts?


even a pre-installed engine would require being subscribed to channels for update - unless we looked at updating appliance images which would be very heavy weight.

I think a simple script that works with the default channel names, and has a disclaimer as such, would suffice