On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 16:18 -0400, Pradeep Kilambi wrote: > Why? This is gonna break the whole premise of exposing the repos on > pulp > similar to its source. Today if a repo has a feed from > /content/fedora/13/ we serve it that way to clients from pulp. How do > we > expect to serve the same when we have multiple feeds? I dont see the > point of having multiple feeds for a given repo when I can have three > repos exposed the same way from pulp. > > What I like about the multiple feed scenario is that it's a super set of the single feed scenario. Just because we allow multiple feeds, doesn't mean an admin has to define multiple feeds per repo.
I just think allow multiple feeds buys us greater flexibility. > > * allow package upload to all repositories > > > > Again, I dont see any benefit of doing this. Do we have a proper use > case to do this or are we just doing this because we can. > I'm thinking of the super set case here, where an admin wants to expose a third-party repo, which additional (possibly home-spun) packages. > > * allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined > feeds > > > > Not sure what this means. This is only applicable if there are multiple feeds defined. I'm thinking we wouldn't require a sync to pull content from every feed, but allow the admin to pick and choose which feeds to update from. -- Jason L Connor Software Engineer Systems Management and Cloud Enablement Red Hat, Inc. +1.919.890.8331 RHCT #605010081634021 Freenode: linear
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
