[Pulp-list] Bulk Repo Creation - Thoughts/Comments?

[Todd B Sanders]

On 03/30/2011 05:49 PM, Mike McCune wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 01:22 PM, Jay Dobies wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 03/30/2011 04:22 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:55 -0400, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>>>>> I'd say we drop "rhn", and determine local from feed url;
>>>> http(s)://
>>>>> ->  remote and file:// ->  local
>>>>>
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>> yea if we can drop rhn; that should make things easy to determine.
>>>>
>>>> ~ Prad
>>>
>>> +1
>>> Yes please. I've always found the syntax of (yum|rhn|local):<uri>
>>> confusing.
>>
>> Same. I haven't had time to really think about this thread, but I agree
>> that that part has always thrown me off. I still forget it from time to
>> time.
>>
>
>
> what happens when the remote repo is a deb repo?  Or the remote repo 
> is just an http collection of files? or if the remote repo is a maven 
> repo? etc... http or https doesn't necessarily always mean the remote 
> location is a yum based repo.
>
> hence, the requirement for a type.  I'd hesitate to drop type all 
> together if we want to make pulp support multiple types of 
> repositories in the future but we could *default* to yum for 
> http/https based repos but allow for overrides if a type is specified.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list

Totally agree Mike. My suggestion is to (1) drop the prefix on the feed 
and (2) add a --content-type attribute (i.e. yum, deb, file, puppet, etc)

-Todd