[Pulp-list] [Pulp-dev] Replicate a directory structure of a remote repo or not?
jsherril at redhat.com
Mon Feb 18 19:36:08 UTC 2019
Speaking for our Katello users, I don't know that its required for us to
do, but might be nice to have. I think we might want to have the option
to preserve or not, as alphabetically organized repositories are nice to
have even when the upstream repository isn't laid out in such a way.
I do seem to remember in the past some desire around kickstarts to
preserve the structure, but i do not remember the details around it.
On 2/18/19 12:34 PM, Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:14 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko
> <ttereshc at redhat.com <mailto:ttereshc at redhat.com>> wrote:
> RPM plugin team discussed this question recently and we are
> leaning towards a conclusion that by default Pulp is expected to
> publish a repo with a directory structure of a remote repository.
> E.g. At the moment if no base_path is configured for a
> distribution, those two repositories  (same content,
> different layout) result in a repo with the same flat structure,
> all packages go into the root directory. Is there an expectation
> that Pulp would generate two repositories with the directory
> structure as in the original remote repo?
> 1. RPM plugin users, please, speak out, do you need/expect/want a
> directory structure to be the same as in a remote repo you sync from?
> 2. It would be good to know if there is such a need for any other
> plugin than RPM. It will help to answer the questions: Should we
> handle this in pulpcore? or in every plugin since plugins might
> have different needs for a default layout?
> Thank you,
>  https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/fixtures/rpm-unsigned/
>  https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/fixtures/rpm-alt-layout/
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-list