[Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

[Daniel Alley]

I think, as long as the metadata is correct, using just the location_href
would be OK.  It should contain all the other bits of information.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200323/49fc72c1/attachment.htm>