I believe pretty much everything is said here, and I just want to add a
single thought.
> However, I do worry that this new default behaviour violates the basic
> user expectation that deb repositories published by pulp will include the
> same metadata fields as the upstream repository that was s
Thanks Quirin for the questions. I put my understanding and recommendations
inline. Other devs please share your perspectives and advice, especially if
they differ from what is written here. More questions and discussion are
welcome. This is complicated stuff, but we want to be here to help.
On We
March 10, 2021
Overview
-
Katello Schedule
-
3.18 November 2020
-
pulpcore 3.7
-
4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
-
pulpcore 3.9
-
4.1 branching ~May 2021
-
pulpcore 3.10 (o
The pulp_deb plugin currently makes use of md5, sha1, sha256, and sha512.
Using ALLOWED_CONTENT_CHECKSUMS to "prohibit" one or more of these checksum
types currently simply breaks the plugin.
This is one (of several) reasons why the pulp_deb CI tests are currently broken
against pulpcore master (
Forgot to add an important line:
## March 10 Agenda
* ansible 3
* POC - https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/545
* CI requiring a removed scenario
* support from 2.9 to 3.0? Or keep with the latest 2 releases (2.10,
3)?
* [mikedep333] Definitely drop 2.8, added comment t
## March 10 Agenda
* ansible 3
* POC - https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/545
* CI requiring a removed scenario
* support from 2.9 to 3.0? Or keep with the latest 2 releases (2.10,
3)?
* [mikedep333] Definitely drop 2.8, added comment to PR on how to
do that.
* runtime
