I believe Crane claims all urls too even though only v1 v2 and crane seem to be needed. At least in my experience. That means you would have to run crane as a vhost even in pulp 2
On Nov 3, 2017 07:53, "Dennis Kliban" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We're looking at developing apache/nginx scripts, and I was thinking >> about documenting the webserver requirements. I think Pulp probably has to >> be rooted at / on any given site so that it can host live APIs. Users can >> still vhost multiple sites at other hostnames so I think it's ok, but I'm >> interested in what others think. I wrote this up here [0] for some >> discussion on the issue. >> >> > I like Pulp owning all the URLs for a hostname. This enables plugin > writers to provide any API endpoints they need without having to deploy a > separate WSGI application. > > Was there any good reason why this was not done for Pulp 2? > > > >> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3114 >> >> -Brian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
