On 01/19/2018 02:36 PM, Will Darton wrote: > Brian thanks for the response > So pardon my newb question here, but I've not delved this deep in yum repo > xmls.. > Would the formatting of the xml make a difference?
Not Brian, but the short answer is "no". Long answer below. > In the foreman generated primary.xml I have a stanza such as this > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <metadata packages="10" xmlns="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/common"; > xmlns:rpm="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/rpm";><package type="rpm"> > <name>libgomp</name> > <arch>ppc</arch> > <version epoch="0" rel="1" ver="6.3.0" /> > <checksum pkgid="YES" type="sha256">081c485b68e30e6c3f53a3b0932f3b > 0067d687797713303734060e6c555da745</checksum> > <summary>GCC OpenMP 2.5 shared support library</summary> > <description>This package contains GCC shared support library which is > needed > for OpenMP 2.5 support. > > > if [ "0" == 1 ] > then > > Work in Progress</description> > <packager /> > > > And then in the direct mirrored primary.xml I have the same stanza but with > proper formatting > <package type="rpm"> > <name>libgomp</name> > <arch>ppc</arch> > <version epoch="0" ver="6.3.0" rel="1"/> > <checksum type="sha256" pkgid="YES">081c485b68e30e6c3f53a3b0932f3b > 0067d687797713303734060e6c555da745</checksum> > <summary>GCC OpenMP 2.5 shared support library</summary> > <description>This package contains GCC shared support library which is > needed > for OpenMP 2.5 support. > > > if [ "0" == 1 ] > then > > Work in Progress</description> > <packager></packager> > > > > I do notice also in the foreman/pulp generated primary.xml, there appears > to be a missing <packager> stanza after the </description> So I'm guessing > the xml is getting misread as its ingested and regenerated by pulp <packager /> is functionally identical to <packager></packager>[0]; the location of the slashes matters there. Additionally, whitespace between tags should't matter[1][2], so the newline before "<package" doesn't matter. I think it's unlikely that those two things are the cause of the problem here. The original error does indicate a malformed xml document, unfortunately doesn't go into detail about exactly where: > TypeError: Parsing primary.xml error: Start tag expected, '<' not > found I suspect it's failing on the very start of the document, though, since that's the only real place a parser can be sure it needs to see a start tag. In your direct mirrored xml example, the xml declaration [0] and the outer metadata tag as seen in the foreman-generated xml seem to be missing: > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <metadata ... > It might be useful to debugging to paste that mirrored primary.xml somewhere, in its entirety. [0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EmptyElemTag - Note that the definition there implicitly supports only "<tag/>" or "<tag />", but support for "<tag></tag>" is demonstrated in the examples. [2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-white-space - "In editing XML documents, it is often convenient to use "white space" (spaces, tabs, and blank lines) to set apart the markup for greater readability. Such white space is *typically not intended for inclusion in the delivered version of the document*.[emphasis mine]" [3]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-element-content - "An element type has element content when elements of that type MUST contain only child elements (no character data), *optionally separated by white space*[emphasis mine]"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
