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

Re: [Pulp-list] Updating repo feeds?



I also noticed that when we update the feed, the 'relative_path' is not updated so the .repo file is busted.

On 10/15/2010 11:46 AM, Todd B. Sanders wrote:
How often do external repo urls change?  I would guess very
infrequently.  I would vote for removing the ability to update the feed
url for an existing repo.

For case 1 below, couldn't the user just rsync any previously sync'd
down content to the new repo location on the filesystem?

This brings up another question.....are we going to prevent users from
creating two repos pointed at the same package storage location on the
pulp server?

-Todd

On 10/15/2010 09:24 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
We currently have the ability in pulp to allow users to update the
feed of the existing repo. This poses some potential issues. So,

Goal of this discussion:

Is to decide if we should allow updating feed urls in existing repos.

Here are the use cases I can think of and potential issues

Case-1: New feed with same content

Pulp has an existing repo A. The feed of this repo is pointing to
http://myhostname/locationA/ and synced. Now this feed location is
moved to http://myhostname/new-locationA/ with same content. In this
case, since the new location content is same as existing synced
content, I would like to be able to update the feed url and continue
using this repo A as it is.

This case justifies the need for having an update option to feed url
in a repo.

Case-2: New feed with different content

Pulp has an existing repo A. The feed of this repo is pointing to
http://myhostname/locationA/ and synced . Now this feed location is
moved to http://myhostname/locationB/ with new content. This case
causes potential issues. I already have existing content from
locationA which most certainly will conflict with new content I'm
gonna pull down from location-B. Now in this case, I will need to
remove previously synced content from this repo and freshly sync down
from location-B for this repo to be sane. But we cannot easily
differentiate between Case-1 and Case-2 to do this. We could probably
do a checksum compare, but even that will result in wipe of the data
even if one single package is changed in the source.

Case-3: No feed

Pulp has an existing repo A. The feed of this repo is pointing to
http://myhostname/locationA/ . Now I make this repo feedless and
upload content. This also will have similar issues as case-2 but
probably less likely. As user would now upload some new packages to
this repo. If these new packages are different from existing ones,
we're good. If we have similar packgaes in the repo, we'll hit some
conflicts and checksum mismatches.

So based on these cases, Its probably a safer choice to not allow user
to update the feed url for a repo. But I can also see the need to
support case-1, where it would be a pain to create a new repo if the
same content is just moved to a new location and I would rather just
update the url and continue using the repo.

So what do you guys think.


_______________________________________________
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]