[Pulp-list] Exclude packages or package groups from repo sync

[Christina Plummer]

Hi,

I am interested in this as well.  I had read an interesting USENIX paper[1]
and slidedeck[2] last year about using Pulp to manage yum repositories for
enterprise environments, and had hoped to implement something similar.
 However, it appears that the features they depend on were only available
in Pulp v1.

The basic workflow is something like this:
1) Sync all updates from upstream to "live" repo (probably daily)
2) Sync all "non-impactful" updates from "live" (filter out kernel and any
other pkgs that we identify as needing more testing) to "unstable" repo
(probably weekly - so pkgs are 1 week old before they appear)
3) Sync all "non-impactful" updates from "unstable" after they have been
there for a certain time period (weekly or monthly) to "stable" repo
4) Don't point any servers to the "live" repo
5) Point non-production servers to "unstable" repo
6) Point production servers to "stable" repo
7) Manually promote "impactful" packages to "unstable" for testing
8) Manually promote "impactful" packages to "stable" after having been
tested

As best I can tell, the solution described in the paper is based on "Sync
filters", which don't seem to be available in Pulp v2.  So I think the only
way to implement something like this would be to use the "copy" feature,
which I don't believe can be scheduled.

Is it possible to implement this sort of workflow in Pulp v2?

Christina

[1] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/lisa11/tech/full_papers/Pierre.pdf
[2] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/lisa11/tech/slides/pierre.pdf


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Randy Barlow <rbarlow at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue 06 Aug 2013 10:04:48 AM EDT, Brian Lee wrote:
> > I believe in older versions of Pulp you could exclude certain packages
> > from being synced locally. However, I haven't encountered the method
> > for this in Pulp 2.1. To conserve disk space, it would be nice if we
> > could exclude packages that match a regex pattern or belong to a
> > package group. Let me know if I've just missed this option in the
> > documentation or if it's not currently supported.
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> We don't currently support this feature, but we have talked about it
> before and we are interested in the possibility of supporting something
> like this. It would be interesting to use to know your use case, as
> there is some difficulty in coming up with a nice way to express what
> should be included or excluded from the CLI. You mention package
> groups, which makes me also think of package categories. Thanks for the
> suggestion!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20130806/5d9839fe/attachment.htm>