[Pulp-list] Creating RHEL 5 compatible yum repositories

Christina Plummer cplummer at gmail.com
Mon Dec 16 18:43:05 UTC 2013


Hi,

Just as a follow-up to my last note: as of 2.1.3, setting the checksum-type
to sha or sha1 was not sufficient.  You will still end up with groupinfo
and updateinfo metadata files created with sha256 checksums unless you
change the Python for modifyrepo.

/usr/share/createrepo/modifyrepo.py

Christina
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Barnaby Court <bcourt at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi, When you create a repo you can manually specify the checksum using the
> --checksum-type flag.  For sha I would recommend using "sha1" as the value
> in order to be as clear as possible as to which checksum type you mean.
>  Regards,
>
> Barnabhy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Bielawa" <tbielawa at redhat.com>
> To: "Josh Baird" <jbaird at follett.com>, pulp-list at redhat.com
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 1:26:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Creating RHEL 5 compatible yum repositories
>
> Thanks for the lightning-fast response!
>
> How about the specific use case of creating a net-new repository of
> 'SHA' type? Syncing repositories is working well for us
>
> It's creating new ones which are giving us issues.
>
>
> "Baird, Josh" <jbaird at follett.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This was fixed in 2.3.0 [1].  We are successfully syncing RHEL5
> repositories with 2.3+.
> >
> > [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029057
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Bielawa
> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 1:18 PM
> > To: pulp-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: [Pulp-list] Creating RHEL 5 compatible yum repositories
> >
> > Prelude: This is in response to BZ1042208 [0], "rpm metadata ignores
> --checksum-type from repository"
> >
> > Has anyone else experienced issues/victories using pulp 2.1+ to create
> YUM repositories which are compatible with RHEL 5?
> >
> > Specifically, I am referring to pulp setting/not setting the checksum
> type of a newly created repository correctly?
> >
> > I have a large number of RHEL 5 boxen to maintain and when we migrated
> to Pulp 2.1 from 1.x we began seeing an issue where:
> >
> >> pulp-admin ... rpm repo create --checksum-type sha ...
> >
> > does not honor the '--checksum-type' option [1], and instead creates all
> new repositories of type SHA256. This causes a backwards compatibility
> issue with our RHEL 5 boxes who only support the SHA checksum type.
> >
> > I am aware of the python-hashlib package, and have verified that
> installing it successfully allows RHEL 5 boxen to consume repositories of
> the SHA256 checksum type. However, IMHO this is a non-obvious work around,
> and not a change I (or other system administrators) can potentially make
> across my entire RHEL 5 infrastructure without a lot of coordination and
> approvals.
> >
> > Thanks for any advice!
> >
> >
> > [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042208
> > [1] https://github.com/juicer/juicer/issues/202
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bielawa, Senior Release Engineer/Scribe, Inception Why Should I Care
> What Color the Bikeshed Is?
> >          http://bikeshed.com/
> > 919.332.6411 Cell | IRC: tbielawa (#inception)
> > 1BA0 4FAB 4C13 FBA0 A036  4958 AD05 E75E 0333 AE37
>
> --
> Tim Bielawa, Senior Release Engineer/Scribe, Inception
> Why Should I Care What Color the Bikeshed Is?
>          http://bikeshed.com/
> 919.332.6411 Cell | IRC: tbielawa (#inception)
> 1BA0 4FAB 4C13 FBA0 A036  4958 AD05 E75E 0333 AE37
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20131216/a8328ab4/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-list mailing list