[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 01:03 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

We have slightly conflicting terms involved here. The term 'feed' suggests that it is a means to populate the repo. Basically, import packages. However, repo 'sync' implies that the feed represents an authoritative source. I know, it's only semantics but ...

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?

That said I do
see where you are coming from and I expect some people do see repos with
feeds as behaving this way.

I just don't want to keep going down a path where we constrain pulp to
work the way Red Hat releases and manages content.  I still see the
project as having the goal to be a generic software
distribution/management tool and not something who's job is to enforce
workflow.  If users want to mix content into one repo by uploading
packages from a local dir and feeding them in from an external source I
think we should let them do that.

If we want to start putting rules, restrictions and policy around how
content flows into a repo I think we should make it optional and


Pulp-list mailing list
Pulp-list redhat com

- --
Jason Dobies
RHCE# 805008743336126
Freenode: jdob
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


Pulp-list mailing list
Pulp-list redhat com

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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