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

Re: [Pulp-list] N00b: Pulp and Cobbler ?

I am actually just now setting up a similar environment. From what I can
tell, Pulp is better at managing repos with keeping track of package
versions, and can push updates out to the consumers without actually
interacting with the server (consumer).

I have been testing with adding a second non-ssl vhost to Pulp's apache
and using that url as the install/updates repos when kickstarting
(inside cobbler kickstart templates). Or you could just import the base
install trees into cobbler and just use that for installs. Each would work.

Any other important differences between the two? Some of their
functionality does overlap, but pulp is better at dealing with lots of
repos, and cobbler is great for managing kickstart stuff.

On 10/26/2011 11:40 AM, Dan White wrote:
> I have a Cobbler/Puppet/Kickstart environment I am running with, but I am running into problems maintaining a local set of repo mirrors.
> Is it possible to roll Pulp into this mix ?
> “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
> Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list

Phil Gardner
OTR Fingerprint 6707E9B8 BD6062D3 5010FE8B 36D614E3 D2F80538

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