I much prefer this solution (A single RPM Repository type), and i think
just using 'location_href' for a rpm uniquness within a repo version
makes a lot of sense, overall +1.
Justin
On 3/23/20 4:27 PM, Daniel Alley wrote:
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 <davidda...@redhat.com
<mailto:davidda...@redhat.com>> wrote:
A couple questions below.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko
<ttere...@redhat.com <mailto:ttere...@redhat.com>> 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
<ggai...@redhat.com <mailto:ggai...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban
<dkli...@redhat.com <mailto:dkli...@redhat.com>> 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
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
--
Grant Gainey
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management
Engineering
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
