[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, Jeff Ortel wrote:


On 10/11/2010 12:33 PM, Todd B. Sanders wrote:
  On 10/11/2010 01:20 PM, 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.

Yes, we are supporting this....cloning repos.
https://fedorahosted.org/pulp/wiki/RepositoryCloning

Have we worked out how the synchronization will worked for repo hierarchies?
If I have repos:

Fedora <- B <- C

Were B clones Fedora and C clones B.

If I sync 'Fedora', will this implicitly sync 'B' and 'C'?
No.   If you sync 'Fedora', and updated content is downloaded into the repo, 'B' will have available content that could be sync'd with a repo sync operation on 'B'.  So bottom line,

*B syncs from Fedora
*C syncs from B

The cloned repos become snapshots in time from the parent repo; the feed gives them a way to update the snapshot.
  Conversely, if I sync 'B', will that implicitly sync it's parents?
No.

Would that make sense?  It would kind of suck if the user had to sync them individually, right?
That's the point.

  Seems like, as a user, I'd expect new/updated packages to magically appear in repo 'C' whenever the 'Fedora' repo is synchronized.
Well, if that was the case why not subscribe your systems to the Fedora repo.  I would posit that the reason you cloned Fedora was to control the pool of available content for your systems.



Also, IMHO, doing this under the name of 'cloning' seems odd (although I'm okay with it).  It's just semantics but it seems more like an 'extends' relationship rather then a 'clone'.  Unless, the intention is that (Fedora,B,C) are only related by feed.

It's point-in-time copy (a) with a feed, or (b) without a feed.

-Todd




-Todd


Lemme know your feedback.

~ Prad

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


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


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


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