[katello-devel] Future feature RFC: Package Upload

Tue Mar 20 23:58:25 UTC 2012

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryan Kearney" <bkearney at redhat.com>
> To: katello-devel at redhat.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:58:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [katello-devel] Future feature RFC: Package Upload
> 
> On 03/20/2012 12:50 PM, Mike McCune wrote:
> > On 03/20/2012 06:33 AM, Brad Buckingham wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/20/2012 08:30 AM, Todd Sanders wrote:
> >>> On 03/19/2012 03:25 PM, Brad Buckingham wrote:
> >>>> In the future, the plan is to provide Katello users with the
> >>>> ability
> >>>> to upload a package. This email is to present a couple of
> >>>> options
> >>>> for accomplishing this in the UI and gather some initial
> >>>> feedback.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assumptions:
> >>>> - Prior to package upload, the target repository must exist.
> >>>> - When a package is uploaded, it will be uploaded only to the
> >>>> Library.
> >>>>
> >>>> The following are a couple of options for accomplishing this in
> >>>> the UI:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Incorporate it as part of Content Management -> Custom
> >>>> Content
> >>>> Providers
> >>>>
> >>>> For example,
> >>>> a. select [provider] -> Products& Repos -> [repository]
> >>>> b. from the Repository Details subpanel, allow the user the
> >>>> ability to browse
> >>>> to a package file and click 'Upload'
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Incorporate it as part of Content Management -> Promotions
> >>>>
> >>>> For example,
> >>>> a. in the content tree, navigate to Repos
> >>>> b. select the repo. (Note: currently, users can see repos
> >>>> listed, but not select them).
> >>>> c. from the Repository Details pane (new), allow the user the
> >>>> ability to browse
> >>>> to a package file and click 'Upload'. (Notes: We could also
> >>>> use this pane to display
> >>>> a few details on the repository, such as name, url and other
> >>>> useful info.).
> >>>>
> >>>> I lean towards option 2 for a couple of reasons:
> >>>> - Before a user adds a package, they are likely to browse to see
> >>>> what
> >>>> packages exist. Currently, this would be done from the
> >>>> Promotions
> >>>> page; therefore, they would already be on the page.
> >>>> - In the future, users will have the ability to download
> >>>> packages.
> >>>> Assuming this will be based on earlier implementations, this
> >>>> would be
> >>>> from the Promotions page; therefore, having both upload/download
> >>>> on
> >>>> Promotions keeps it 'somewhat' consistent.
> >>>>
> >>>> There may be other options as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any thoughts/opinions/preferences?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Brad
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> katello-devel mailing list
> >>>> katello-devel at redhat.com
> >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
> >>>
> >> [brad] Folks, A lot of great feedback. Thanks! As a next step,
> >> will
> >> create a wiki page to outline the requirements for the feature.
> >> For
> >> integration in the UI, will assume that this will be part of the
> >> overall
> >> content browser solution, so we'll work the details of UI
> >> look/design as
> >> part of that bigger feature.
> >>
> >>> Couple of comments here:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Let's not reinvent the wheel here, the heavy lifting has
> >>> already
> >>> been done in Pulp. We should expose the same set of functionality
> >>> that Pulp provides with regards to package uploads via it's cli.
> >>> See:
> >>> http://pulpproject.org/ug/UGContent.html#upload
> >>>
> >
> > definite big +1

+1

> >
> >> [brad] +1. I had looked over the REST APIs, but not the CLI.
> >> Thanks
> >> for the pointer.
> >>> 2. Package uploads are only valid for "Custom" Providers.
> >>>
> >> [brad] +1. That was the intent.
> >>> 3. We need to support both uploading single packages and/or
> >>> *directories* of packages to the Library, and only to the
> >>> Library.
> >>> IMO, the best place for this functionality would be within a
> >>> content
> >>> browser either (a) from a screen where the user is browsing all
> >>> packages in the Library, or (b) from a screen where the where the
> >>> user
> >>> is browsing all packages scoped to a repository in the Library.
> >>> Isn't
> >>> the content browser functionality targeted for our next release?
> >>>
> >> [brad] Thanks for the input regarding the needs. Based on the
> >> clarifications on what Katello will need to support, the content
> >> browser
> >> is the better fit, as it doesn't really fit in to the existing
> >> capabilities. Content browser is planned for the next release.
> >> We'll
> >> need to get the discussions rolling on that one, if they haven't
> >> already, since this would be a small piece of that bigger
> >> solution.
> >
> > directory uploads would be awesome, unfortunately without something
> > like
> > Flash or Java there is no way to upload a directory of files with a
> > browser, you can only do a file-by-file approach with pure
> > JavaScript
> > and HTML. More info here:
> >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/254251/what-is-the-best-way-to-upload-a-folder-to-a-website
> >
> >
> > just something to keep in mind. For the CLI this won't be an issue
> > but
> > for our WebUI we won't be able to do a whole directory.
> 
> IMHO.. simple at first. package only. If we want a fancy directory,
> make
> a provider which supports a local directory and polls.

What about supporting upload of an archive containing multiple packages instead?

> 
> >
> >>> 4. Packages should be able to exist without repository
> >>> associations.
> >>> Meaning I can upload to server, then associate with one or more
> >>> repositories. This could be done in a single operation for
> >>> convenience, but not required.
> >>>
> >> [brad] Good point. It would provide more flexibility to not force
> >> it as
> >> a single operation.
> >
> > what is the real use case for 'repoless' packages? Do people really
> > use
> > this that often? I ask because it will require us to write
> > UI/CLI/API to
> > manage packages that live outside of a repository which we really
> > don't
> > have any notion of now. Just making sure that this is something we
> > really need. Wondering if we can start by forcing all packages to
> > be at
> > least a member of one or more repos and if people really want
> > repoless
> > packages we can do that too.
> 
> +1. KISS for first cut.

I don't see a reason to support packages outside of a repository. Could we provide an option to create a repository named after the package is uploaded? For example, I try to upload httpd-2.0.rpm and there is an option to create a repository with the package instead of selecting an already existing repository?

> 
> >
> >>> 5. Packages that already exist in a Library repository should be
> >>> able
> >>> to be associated and un-associated from other Library
> >>> repositories.
> >>>
> >> [brad] +1
> >>> 6. We need to support chunked uploads; and the upload should be
> >>> able
> >>> to resume if restarted after a failure.
> >>>
> >> [brad] +1
> >
> > definitely good but will have some interesting technical challenges
> > from
> > a browser's perspective.
> 
> 
> The main scenario I have heard is cli. I would be willing, honestly,
> to
> make most the features cli :)

While I agree with that, I'm not sure it will go over well with the Windows users. IMO, if we want to go after a broader user base we need to support it in the WUI too.

> 
> -- bk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> katello-devel mailing list
> katello-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
> 