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

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

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 15:49 -0400, tsanders redhat com wrote:
> Can someone help me understand a use case where you would want to
> combine the contents of 2+ external yum repos into a single pulp repo?
> Flexibility is great, but we need to be sure that this functionality
> is worthwhile.
> I get being able to mirror fedora, the Dell firmware repo, and setting
> up a custom repo for my internally developed tools.  Not sure I would
> ever want all of this in a single repo, that would seem to be
> confusing.  Is having my systems subscribed to one repo that much more
> beneficial than subscribed to 3? 

I guess not really.

I just like flexibility over rigidity when programming. There always
seems to be some use case that doesn't get thought of that more flexible
models can be made to address that rigid ones usually cannot (strictly
talking from experience, I don't have a use case in mind).

Given some of the corner cases pointed out and the questions around
attempt to resolve conflicts, it seems like it may be more trouble that
it's worth, and we should probably stick to the proposed model of
separation between repos with a feed and repos that can be uploaded to.

That said, all the "conflict" corner cases that have arisen have all
been based on the assumption that pulp is strictly a yum repository, or
at best, a software package repository management tool and that any
ambitions toward being something more general should probably be
scrapped. I'd like to add, that I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but
we should probably acknowledge it.

Jason L Connor
Software Engineer
Systems Management and Cloud Enablement
Red Hat, Inc.
RHCT #605010081634021
Freenode: linear

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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