[Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

[Justin Sherrill]

I much prefer this solution (A single RPM Repository type), and i think 
just using 'location_href' for a rpm uniquness within a repo version 
makes a lot of sense, overall +1.

Justin

On 3/23/20 4:27 PM, Daniel Alley wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:daviddavis at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     A couple questions below.
>
>     On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko
>     <ttereshc at redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto:ggainey at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>             On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban
>             <dkliban at redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>             https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Pulp-dev mailing list
>         Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pulp-dev mailing list
>     Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto: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/20200324/1ab424a3/attachment.htm>