I think, as long as the metadata is correct, using just the location_href would be OK. It should contain all the other bits of information.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > A couple questions below. > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Clarification: >> The proposal is to add the 'location_href' attribute to >> the repo_key_fields, uniqueness constraint within a repository version, so >> 2 packages with the same NEVRA but different location can be present in one >> repo. >> > > Why have nevra+relative_path instead of just relative_path? ie would it be > possible for two packages in a repo version to have the same relative_paths > but different nevras? > > >> RPM package is still uniquely identified in Pulp by NEVRA + checksum(aka >> pkgId) + checksum type. >> > > What if a user has the same package in a repo at two different locations > or the same package in two different repos at the different locations. > Since relative_path is attached to the content unit, I think this would > prevent this from happening? I wonder if uniqueness in Pulp should also > have location_href/relative_path? > > >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:33 PM Grant Gainey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> During last week's RPM team meeting, a concern was raised about using >>>> the same repository type for both Red Hat and SUSE repositories. Since that >>>> meeting I have only been able to identify a single difference between the >>>> two repositories. SUSE repos can contain the same package in two different >>>> locations in the same repository. Even though I just referred to this as a >>>> difference, I don't actually believe that to be true. All RPM repositories >>>> should be able to support this. >>>> >>> >>> If I'm reading the discussion w/the RPM folks correctly, this is 'odd >>> but legal' for rpm-repositories. That means that, while SUSE may be the >>> only current example, there's nothing to keep some other distro/thirdparty >>> from doing the exact same thing, and we'd have to handle it. >>> >>> >>>> I propose that we not add a separate repository type for SUSE and >>>> simply add the 'location' attribute of an RPM to it's uniqueness >>>> constraint. What do you all think? >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, concur. It feels messy - but only because the problem-domain >>> itself is messy :( >>> >>> G >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Grant Gainey >>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
