[Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

[David Davis]

A couple questions below.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Clarification:
> The proposal is to add  the 'location_href' attribute to
> the  repo_key_fields, uniqueness constraint within a repository version, so
> 2 packages with the same NEVRA but different location can be present in one
> repo.
>

Why have nevra+relative_path instead of just relative_path? ie would it be
possible for two packages in a repo version to have the same relative_paths
but different nevras?


> RPM package is still uniquely identified in Pulp by NEVRA +  checksum(aka
> pkgId) + checksum type.
>

What if a user has the same package in a repo at two different locations or
the same package in two different repos at the different locations. Since
relative_path is attached to the content unit, I think this would prevent
this from happening? I wonder if uniqueness in Pulp should also have
location_href/relative_path?


>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:33 PM Grant Gainey <ggainey at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> During last week's RPM team meeting, a concern was raised about using
>>> the same repository type for both Red Hat and SUSE repositories. Since that
>>> meeting I have only been able to identify a single difference between the
>>> two repositories. SUSE repos can contain the same package in two different
>>> locations in the same repository. Even though I just referred to this as a
>>> difference, I don't actually believe that to be true. All RPM repositories
>>> should be able to support this.
>>>
>>
>> If I'm reading the discussion w/the RPM folks correctly, this is 'odd but
>> legal' for rpm-repositories. That means that, while SUSE may be the only
>> current example, there's nothing to keep some other distro/thirdparty from
>> doing the exact same thing, and we'd have to handle it.
>>
>>
>>> I propose that we not add a separate repository type for SUSE and simply
>>> add the 'location' attribute of an RPM to it's uniqueness constraint.  What
>>> do you all think?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, concur. It feels messy - but only because the problem-domain itself
>> is messy :(
>>
>> G
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Grant Gainey
>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200323/12038361/attachment.htm>