[katello-devel] [pulp-internal] Package Profile Capture Design Doc

[Todd B Sanders]

On 05/26/2011 12:14 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Lemme throw out a couple of things:
>
> 1) The interaction is really between rhsm and pulp, katello is a bit 
> of a side effect.
>
> 2) You mention these 2 featues:
>
> # Package profile Module (for rpms, jars etc)
> # Certificate Bundle (to read/write certificates from /etc/pki/consumer)
>
> but later talk about gofer.
>
> Let me suggest this.
>
> 1) Since this is rhsm/pulp interaction.. can we merge this into 
> python-rhsm? That package is already in fedora and RHEL, so it will 
> ease the transition.

Are you suggesting we maintain this code in two places?  As we need this 
functionality for pulp-client/pulp as well.
>
> 2) If we augment the low level API, candlepin may need to handle a 
> "No-op" method of receiving the package set of discarding it. If we 
> make it an extension point, then IT or SAM could leverage this later.

ok.
>
> 3) I think the package should be limited to yum plugins and a daemon 
> not tied to gofer. This will make it easy to get into RHEL. The gofer 
> stuff can be more command and control, and can use the same library code.

Fair.  Jeff/Prad - Thoughts?

-Todd
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- bk
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/26/2011 10:39 AM, Todd B Sanders wrote:
>> On 05/26/2011 10:34 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2011 10:27 AM, jesus m. rodriguez wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 05/26/2011 10:22 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>>>>> On 05/26/2011 10:05 AM, Todd B Sanders wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/26/2011 10:00 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/26/2011 09:55 AM, jesus m. rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/25/2011 01:40 PM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Here is the design/spec document for package profile capture 
>>>>>>>>> story.
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> will impact both Pulp and Katello.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/pulp/wiki/PackageProfileUpdate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please lemme know if you guys have further thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> ~ Prad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> katello-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> katello-devel at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
>>>>>>>> Instead of pulp-client-utils how about calling it Mache.
>>>>>>>> As in Paper Mache which is made from wood pulp.
>>>>>>>> And you can build things with paper mache.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just my 2 pesos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jesus
>>>>>>> Hehe cool name. Todd what do you think? I'll be filing for a 
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>> hosting request today. If we can agree on the name, I'll go ahead
>>>>>>> with filing the ticket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ Prad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> katello-devel mailing list
>>>>>>> katello-devel at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
>>>>>> What am I missing? Why a separate project for this? .....as this is
>>>>>> just part of the pulp client-side tooling. The reason we are pulling
>>>>>> into a separate rpm is so that is can more easily be leveraged by
>>>>>> additional clients (i.e. RHSM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>> We can use it under same pulp project. Since this is a separate tool
>>>>> shared between katello, pulp and RHSM and need to get into brew at 
>>>>> some
>>>>> point for RHEL, I was thinking it would be easier if its not tied up
>>>>> with pulp itself. This is a package pulp, ketello/rhsm will 
>>>>> require. So
>>>>> might have a case where we want newer builds for this package
>>>>> outside of
>>>>> pulp itself ?
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Prad
>>>> You have a couple options:
>>>>
>>>> 1) keep it in the same tree as pulp following the pulp release cycle
>>>>
>>>> 2) put it as separate git repo on fedora but link to it from the
>>>> pulp wiki and mailing list. That's what we did with Thumbslug and
>>>> Headpin. They are their own repos but linked from the Candelpin wiki.
>>>>
>>>> This way you get to have a clean repo people can contribute to and
>>>> maintain it on a separate release schedule if needed.
>>>>
>>>> jesus
>>>
>>> Option-2 makes sense to me. I dont think we should bind the release
>>> cycle of a shared library package with pulp itself.
>>
>> Ah. I read the original email as separate "Project", which I am *not* in
>> favor of. Using a separate repo (i.e. grinder), linked to the existing
>> Pulp project makes sense.
>>
>> -Todd
>>>
>>> ~ Prad
>>>
>>>> - -- jesus m. rodriguez | jesusr at redhat.com
>>>> principal software engineer | irc: zeus
>>>> red hat systems management | 919.754.4413 (w)
>>>> rhce # 805008586930012 | 919.623.0080 (c)
>>>> +---------------------------------------------+
>>>> | "Those who cannot remember the past |
>>>> | are condemned to repeat it." |
>>>> | -- George Santayana |
>>>> +---------------------------------------------+
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>>>
>>>> iEYEARECAAYFAk3eY0YACgkQvJZ57YntiYOe4wCgw14/kT1bAZJA3SES5nqv6Lrd
>>>> QlMAoIQQ0Q3+3VZE0Qeq+CwDkLFBZrgw
>>>> =AWbH
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>
>