On 10/11/2010 02:03 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote:
On 10/11/2010 12:33 PM, Todd B. Sanders wrote:
On 10/11/2010 01:20 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote:
On 10/11/2010 10:17 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
Should we allow the case where, user creates a repo with a feed, syncs
down the content and then tries to upload additional content to the
same
repo?
Pros:
* A user probably will have an easy time adding custom content to
their
repos without having to create new repos
Cons:
* We need to regenerate metadata for the repo. Today we get the
metadata
for repos with feed directly from the feed.
* Will need to worry about what version of RHEL/Fedora pulp is running
on for compatible yum metadata.
* For Red Hat repos, we probably dont want to allow this anyway. So
we'll need some extra rules to bypass this.
Overall seems like keeping uploads separate from feed repos is
cleaner.
User can always create a new repo, upload content and subscribe to
both
repos to get that additional content.
Agreed, we should keep them separate.
Also, we discussed (in imanage) supporting repos which extend other
repos. If we still intend to do this, then users can easily create a
repo with no feed that extends a repo that does have a feed. This
mitigates the need to subscribe to both repos.
Yes, we are supporting this....cloning repos.
https://fedorahosted.org/pulp/wiki/RepositoryCloning
Have we worked out how the synchronization will worked for repo
hierarchies?
If I have repos:
Fedora <- B <- C
Were B clones Fedora and C clones B.
If I sync 'Fedora', will this implicitly sync 'B' and 'C'?
No. If you sync 'Fedora', and updated content is downloaded into the
repo, 'B' will have available content that could be sync'd with a repo
sync operation on 'B'. So bottom line,
*B syncs from Fedora
*C syncs from B
The cloned repos become snapshots in time from the parent repo; the feed
gives them a way to update the snapshot.
Conversely, if I sync 'B', will that implicitly sync it's parents?
No.
Would that make sense? It would kind of suck if the user had to sync
them individually, right?
That's the point.
Seems like, as a user, I'd expect new/updated packages to magically
appear in repo 'C' whenever the 'Fedora' repo is synchronized.
Well, if that was the case why not subscribe your systems to the Fedora
repo. I would posit that the reason you cloned Fedora was to control
the pool of available content for your systems.
Also, IMHO, doing this under the name of 'cloning' seems odd (although
I'm okay with it). It's just semantics but it seems more like an
'extends' relationship rather then a 'clone'. Unless, the intention
is that (Fedora,B,C) are only related by feed.
It's point-in-time copy (a) with a feed, or (b) without a feed.
-Todd
-Todd
Lemme know your feedback.
~ Prad
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
