On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 02:38:33PM -0500, David Davis wrote: > I want to point out that the RPM example is not correct. RPMs are > unique in Pulp by checksum (aka pkgId in our code and createrepo_c): > [1]https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/44f97560533379ad8680055edff9c3 > c5bd4e859f/pulp_rpm/app/models.py#L223 > Therefore Pulp can store two packages with the same > name-epoch-version-arch (NEVRA) as you would in the case where there is > a signed and unsigned RPM with the same NEVRA.
I missed that pkgId is the former Pulp 2 checksum. Thanks for pointing that out! Thus, pulp_rpm seems to be in the "pulp_file camp" as well. Does pulp_rpm prevent that two such packages (same NEVRA, different checksum) end up in one repo version/one publication? _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
