[Pulp-dev] Removing PublishedArtifact?

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Sep 19 18:04:00 UTC 2018

What about the case where a plugin publishes a subset of content from the
repo version? Then the content app might match something it’s not supposed

I think @jortel mentioned having an option on the publication to pass
through requests to the repo version if there’s no published artifact. That
seems safer.


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:54 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thank you for all this feedback. I'm convinced that we should leave
> PublishedArtifact and PublishedMetadata as is w.r.t ticket #4020. I've
> revised it as such.
> For the plugin writer I'm working with, they do want to have the
> ContentArtifact.relative_path be the final repository layout. So now the
> scope of work for #4020 is only to extend the content app to search
> ContentArtifact.relative_path before returning the 404 if no
> PublishedArtifact or PublishedMetadata objects match for that publication.
> What about doing that? Also I'm kind of hoping to deliver this code to the
> plugin writer kind of soon. Thank you again for all the great input here
> and on the input.
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:59 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I think that pulp_deb could maybe create its own association between
>> publication and artifacts. The problem is that PublishedArtifacts is a
>> one-size-fits-all solution that probably ought to be instead implemented in
>> plugins that require some specialized way to join publications and
>> artifacts.
>> David
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:
>>> Not entierly sure, that this is related, but a while ago, we laid out a
>>> road map for the pulp3_deb plugin [1]. It includes 8 different
>>> publishers, that publish different metadata for the same repository
>>> version. As far as i understand, that is exactly, what
>>> PublishedArtifacts are for. If it were possible to just use ordinary
>>> Artifacts and associate them with a Publication instead of a
>>> RepositoryVersion it might be ok in that context.
>>> Cheers, Matthias
>>> [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-deb-pulp3/timeslider#2902
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:45:15 -0400
>>> Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > A plugin writer (@oleksander) pointed out to me that PublishedArtifact
>>> > seems a bit out of place for his usage. I can see why he thinks that,
>>> > and after thinking about it, Pulp does seem a bit over-complicated in
>>> > this area. I've written [0] to describe the problem, promote
>>> > discussion of this issue, and hopefully decide on a resolution.
>>> >
>>> > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020
>>> >
>>> > Discussion and collaboration is welcome!
>>> >
>>> > -Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180919/be416f8d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list