[Pulp-list] Updating repo feeds?

[Jeff Ortel]

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 at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list