[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-list] Handling Uploads to repos with feed

On 10/11/2010 02:03 PM, Jason Dobies wrote:
Hash: SHA1

good point ..

to me a feed is just a way to get packages into a repo and uploads are
another way.  I don't think we said anywhere that by defining a feed for
a repo we have a contract to ensure that the package content in the
upstream is exactly the same as is on the pulp server.
This is a good distinction. If we treat feeds the way Mike is
suggesting, uploading a package into a repo isn't a huge issue.

If we're treating the feed as the authoritative source on packages in
that repo, then we have to take into account things like when the feed
previously indicated package X was in it but is no longer there. Do we
delete package X on pulp then?

If we do delete package X, I don't see how we could support uploaded
packages into a feed-backed repo. Otherwise, when we sync with the feed
it will notice the uploaded package was not in the recent sync with the
feed and delete it. And I'd really rather not go into the realm of
keeping track of packages that were uploaded v. those that came from the

I added a flag to the Package model 'repo_defined', this flag tracks if a Package is defined by the repo source, or if it came in some other way. During a repo sync, all packages added are marked 'repo_defined=True', otherwise if a Package is added by anything else it defaults to 'repo_defined=False'. This is similar to how we handle package groups and custom package groups, we had thoughts of doing this for custom errata as well.

The issue left was how to handle yum metadata.

In regard to the whole issue of supporting this I shared Mike's perspective, I felt the feed was one way to get packages in and uploading was another valid way. I didn't want to add limits if we didn't have to.

So there's two questions here:
- - What do we want the feed to represent, simply a one way mechanism to
introduce packages into a repo (in which case we really should allow for
more than one feed per repo) or the feed acting as a more authority
figure who will keep the repo up to date with its knowledge of packages
(in which case we may need to implement remove functionality).
- - How does pulp currently act?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]