Speaking for our Katello users, I don't know that its required for us to
do, but might be nice to have. I think we might want to have the option
to preserve or not, as alphabetically organized repositories are nice to
have even when the upstream repository isn't laid out in such a way.
I do seem to remember in the past some desire around kickstarts to
preserve the structure, but i do not remember the details around it.
On 2/18/19 12:34 PM, Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote:
+pulp-list
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:14 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko
<ttere...@redhat.com <mailto:ttere...@redhat.com>> wrote:
RPM plugin team discussed this question recently and we are
leaning towards a conclusion that by default Pulp is expected to
publish a repo with a directory structure of a remote repository.
E.g. At the moment if no base_path is configured for a
distribution, those two repositories [0][1] (same content,
different layout) result in a repo with the same flat structure,
all packages go into the root directory. Is there an expectation
that Pulp would generate two repositories with the directory
structure as in the original remote repo?
1. RPM plugin users, please, speak out, do you need/expect/want a
directory structure to be the same as in a remote repo you sync from?
2. It would be good to know if there is such a need for any other
plugin than RPM. It will help to answer the questions: Should we
handle this in pulpcore? or in every plugin since plugins might
have different needs for a default layout?
Thank you,
Tanya
[0] https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/fixtures/rpm-unsigned/
[1] https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/fixtures/rpm-alt-layout/
_______________________________________________
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
