[Pulp-list] Handling Uploads to repos with feed

[Pradeep Kilambi]

On 10/11/2010 01:22 PM, Mike McCune wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 10:20 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/2010 10:17 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>>> Should we allow the case where, user creates a repo with a feed, syncs
>>> down the content and then tries to upload additional content to the 
>>> same
>>> repo?
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>>
>>> * A user probably will have an easy time adding custom content to their
>>> repos without having to create new repos
>>>
>>> Cons:
>>>
>>> * We need to regenerate metadata for the repo. Today we get the 
>>> metadata
>>> for repos with feed directly from the feed.
>>> * Will need to worry about what version of RHEL/Fedora pulp is running
>>> on for compatible yum metadata.
>>> * For Red Hat repos, we probably dont want to allow this anyway. So
>>> we'll need some extra rules to bypass this.
>>>
>>> Overall seems like keeping uploads separate from feed repos is cleaner.
>>> User can always create a new repo, upload content and subscribe to both
>>> repos to get that additional content.
>>
>> Agreed, we should keep them separate.
>>
>> Also, we discussed (in imanage) supporting repos which extend other 
>> repos.  If we still
>> intend to do this, then users can easily create a repo with no feed 
>> that extends a repo
>> that does have a feed.  This mitigates the need to subscribe to both 
>> repos.
>>
>
> I still don't see why it is all that different than what we have now 
> with the addition of the need to run createrepo --update after a sync 
> like we do now after a package upload ...
>
> Is there something more than that?
>
> Mike

The difference is that we dont have to generate repodata when we do a 
sync as we get that from the source. This will help us keep the repo 
format in sync with the release. Example, I have rhel-5 and f-13 synced. 
Once has sha1 and other has sha256.

Now for custom content, yes we do have to generate the repodata as we do 
today when uploaded, but we'll be generating with probably a lowest 
common denominator. My main concern is for adding extra overhead to sync 
operation in generating the metadata when we already have that on the 
source.

If we keep these separate, it makes things easier to maintain in my 
opinion and keep repos as part of sync clean.

user can always create a new repo, upload packages and subscribe to it. 
They are not loosing anything huge by not having this ability.

~ Prad


>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list