I think that pulp_deb could maybe create its own association between publication and artifacts. The problem is that PublishedArtifacts is a one-size-fits-all solution that probably ought to be instead implemented in plugins that require some specialized way to join publications and artifacts.
David On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Matthias Dellweg <dell...@atix.de> wrote: > Not entierly sure, that this is related, but a while ago, we laid out a > road map for the pulp3_deb plugin [1]. It includes 8 different > publishers, that publish different metadata for the same repository > version. As far as i understand, that is exactly, what > PublishedArtifacts are for. If it were possible to just use ordinary > Artifacts and associate them with a Publication instead of a > RepositoryVersion it might be ok in that context. > > Cheers, Matthias > > [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-deb-pulp3/timeslider#2902 > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:45:15 -0400 > Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > A plugin writer (@oleksander) pointed out to me that PublishedArtifact > > seems a bit out of place for his usage. I can see why he thinks that, > > and after thinking about it, Pulp does seem a bit over-complicated in > > this area. I've written [0] to describe the problem, promote > > discussion of this issue, and hopefully decide on a resolution. > > > > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020 > > > > Discussion and collaboration is welcome! > > > > -Brian > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev