How often do external repo urls change? I would guess very
infrequently. I would vote for removing the ability to update the feed
url for an existing repo.
For case 1 below, couldn't the user just rsync any previously sync'd
down content to the new repo location on the filesystem?
This brings up another question.....are we going to prevent users from
creating two repos pointed at the same package storage location on the
pulp server?
-Todd
On 10/15/2010 09:24 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
We currently have the ability in pulp to allow users to update the feed of the
existing repo. This poses some potential issues. So,
Goal of this discussion:
Is to decide if we should allow updating feed urls in existing repos.
Here are the use cases I can think of and potential issues
Case-1: New feed with same content
Pulp has an existing repo A. The feed of this repo is pointing to
http://myhostname/locationA/ and synced. Now this feed location is moved to
http://myhostname/new-locationA/ with same content. In this case, since the new
location content is same as existing synced content, I would like to be able to
update the feed url and continue using this repo A as it is.
This case justifies the need for having an update option to feed url in a repo.
Case-2: New feed with different content
Pulp has an existing repo A. The feed of this repo is pointing to
http://myhostname/locationA/ and synced . Now this feed location is moved to
http://myhostname/locationB/ with new content. This case causes potential
issues. I already have existing content from locationA which most certainly
will conflict with new content I'm gonna pull down from location-B. Now in this
case, I will need to remove previously synced content from this repo and
freshly sync down from location-B for this repo to be sane. But we cannot
easily differentiate between Case-1 and Case-2 to do this. We could probably do
a checksum compare, but even that will result in wipe of the data even if one
single package is changed in the source.
Case-3: No feed
Pulp has an existing repo A. The feed of this repo is pointing to
http://myhostname/locationA/ . Now I make this repo feedless and upload
content. This also will have similar issues as case-2 but probably less likely.
As user would now upload some new packages to this repo. If these new packages
are different from existing ones, we're good. If we have similar packgaes in
the repo, we'll hit some conflicts and checksum mismatches.
So based on these cases, Its probably a safer choice to not allow user to
update the feed url for a repo. But I can also see the need to support case-1,
where it would be a pain to create a new repo if the same content is just moved
to a new location and I would rather just update the url and continue using the
repo.
So what do you guys think.
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
