I think we should keep nevra as unique constraint, but as I mentioned before (above in this thread) your idea is similar to mine as my suggestion was NEVRA + checksum (pkgId). With pkgId I've already tested it and working good.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:43 AM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > I discussed this a little bit on the #rpm.org channel. Here is the gist > of that discussion > > - The metadata is "crazy, but technically valid" > - "the entire SUSE ecosystem tends to do this a lot, anything using > OBS, including nvidia and dell and friends" > - "also, SUSE packages can have the same NEVRA with being completely > different packages because of how their build system makes packages" > > I'm not sure what the best means to fix it would be. Perhaps the > uniqueness constraint should be on the location_href, instead of on the > NEVRA? Or on NEVRA + location_href? > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:47 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Pavel, >> I meant to say, that pulp3 does not have such limitation as pulp2 had ( >> saving rpms on the filesystem with same nevra). >> The error is raised in pulp3 [0] when a repo version is created, because >> of the repo key[1], we cannot have 2 rpms with save NEVRA. >> >> We can enable that, if we decide to, by adding location_href to the >> repo_key, *but* this needs to be evaluated, it can have side effects and we >> should involve our stakeholders to weigh in. >> >> [0] >> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/repository.py#L570 >> [1] >> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/master/pulp_rpm/app/models/package.py#L188 >> >> -------- >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >> >> "Do not go where the path may lead, >> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 2:24 PM Pavel Picka <ppi...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> True in opensuse repository there are two possibilities 'src' and >>> 'nosrc' (this one should be legacy without source code), both are >>> recognized by createrepo_c as arch 'src'. >>> >>> To point the pulp2 code I mentioned I found here [0] (base rpm package >>> what I understood). >>> >>> The rise of error in pulp3 happening here [1] in pulpcore when adding >>> packages to repository version. >>> So as Ina mentioned it doesn't have to be an issue with packages itself >>> than the logic in sync. >>> >>> [0] >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/2-master/plugins/pulp_rpm/plugins/db/models.py#L779 >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/repository.py#L570 >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:55 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Tanya and Pavel, >>>> in this issue it is explained why we cannot keep 2 packages with same >>>> NEVRA but different checksums within a repo >>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/494 >>>> >>>> Pulp2 had a limitation where it was not able to save on the filesystem >>>> 2 rpms with same filename, it lead to the primary.xml that could have >>>> pointed to the rpm that did not actually get saved. >>>> I believe in Pulp3 we could allow having rpm with same NEVRA if they >>>> have different location_href within a repo. >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ina Panova >>>> Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>> >>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:47 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Pavel, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:31 PM Pavel Picka <ppi...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, would like to ask you how to proceed with issue with duplicate >>>>>> (but not really) packages. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am syncing suse repository (opensuse42 and SLE12) and get and >>>>>> duplicate error. But when checking the packages [0](from primary.xml) >>>>>> glibc >>>>>> and glibc they got same nevra but different checksum (and a few more as >>>>>> size..) so doesn't look like real duplicates. >>>>>> >>>>> Those are weird, the have the same nevra but see the location_href, >>>>> one is src and the other one is nosrc! :/ : >>>>> <location href="nosrc/glibc-2.19-20.3.nosrc.rpm"/> >>>>> <location href="src/glibc-2.19-20.3.src.rpm"/> >>>>> >>>>> It looks like something OpenSUSE specific. I'm not sure if it's a >>>>> valid way to create a repo with such metadata, we need to figure it out at >>>>> some point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I've checked Pulp2 and there is used nevra+sum for repository >>>>>> uniqueness. In pulp3 we use only nevra. >>>>>> >>>>> Why do you think that in pulp 2 we use NEVRA + checksum? have you >>>>> tested it? please point to the code. >>>>> I believe in Pulp 2 as well as in Pulp 3 we allow to have packages >>>>> with different checksums in Pulp storage. >>>>> I don't think we allow having the same packages with different >>>>> checksums in the same repo. >>>>> FWIW, in pulp 2 the most recently added package is chosen to stay in a >>>>> repo, no packages with duplicate NEVRA left after sync, see >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/2-master/plugins/pulp_rpm/plugins/importers/yum/purge.py#L285-L333 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion is to extend repo_key_fields for rpm package as is in >>>>>> pulp2 with pkgId (checksum). As I don't think they are really duplicates >>>>>> and other software can rely on specific version of package. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, I don't remember the main reason to remove duplicates >>>>> based on nevra. Was it because some tooling will complain, or was it just >>>>> to avoid duplicates at resync time? Does anyone know? >>>>> We should not change it unless we know for sure that it's needed + we >>>>> would need to have an agreement from all our stakeholders for that change. >>>>> >>>>> For now, I think we can move on and ensure that no duplicates are in a >>>>> repo version. To my understanding, the behaviour will be the same as in >>>>> pulp 2. >>>>> Feel free to share where you get duplicate error to see if it's a bug >>>>> or not. I wonder why duplicates are not removed automatically. Maybe >>>>> because the first version contains duplicates due to this bug >>>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6217 ? >>>>> >>>>> Tanya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [0] >>>>>> >>>>>>> <package type="rpm"> >>>>>>> <name>glibc</name> >>>>>>> <arch>src</arch> >>>>>>> <version epoch="0" ver="2.19" rel="20.3"/> >>>>>>> <checksum type="sha256" >>>>>>> pkgid="YES">00d36c0f741b0c01a77ce318a2bbcfa59cb4dd0b24ce61f57c6205e4fa1bb310</checksum> >>>>>>> <summary>Standard Shared Libraries (from the GNU C >>>>>>> Library)</summary> >>>>>>> <description>The GNU C Library provides the most important >>>>>>> standard libraries used >>>>>>> by nearly all programs: the standard C library, the standard math >>>>>>> library, and the POSIX thread library. A system is not functional >>>>>>> without these libraries.</description> >>>>>>> <packager>https://www.suse.com/</packager> >>>>>>> <url>http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html</url> >>>>>>> <time file="1426696882" build="1425645307"/> >>>>>>> <size package="591662" installed="13047428" archive="974464"/> >>>>>>> <location href="nosrc/glibc-2.19-20.3.nosrc.rpm"/> >>>>>>> <format> >>>>>>> <rpm:license>LGPL-2.1+ and SUSE-LGPL-2.1+-with-GCC-exception and >>>>>>> GPL-2.0+</rpm:license> >>>>>>> <rpm:vendor>SUSE LLC <https://www.suse.com/></rpm:vendor> >>>>>>> <rpm:group>System/Libraries</rpm:group> >>>>>>> <rpm:buildhost>sheep16</rpm:buildhost> >>>>>>> <rpm:sourcerpm/> >>>>>>> <rpm:header-range start="872" end="144403"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:requires> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="pwdutils"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="xz"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="fdupes"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="systemd-rpm-macros"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="libselinux-devel"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="makeinfo"/> >>>>>>> </rpm:requires> >>>>>>> </format> >>>>>>> </package> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <package type="rpm"> >>>>>>> <name>glibc</name> >>>>>>> <arch>src</arch> >>>>>>> <version epoch="0" ver="2.19" rel="20.3"/> >>>>>>> <checksum type="sha256" >>>>>>> pkgid="YES">353e1dc85eab8d434be83160eca4fcee11a72eec345385df125ca0835abd6068</checksum> >>>>>>> <summary>Standard Shared Libraries (from the GNU C >>>>>>> Library)</summary> >>>>>>> <description>The GNU C Library provides the most important >>>>>>> standard libraries used >>>>>>> by nearly all programs: the standard C library, the standard math >>>>>>> library, and the POSIX thread library. A system is not functional >>>>>>> without these libraries.</description> >>>>>>> <packager>https://www.suse.com/</packager> >>>>>>> <url>http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html</url> >>>>>>> <time file="1426696883" build="1423750734"/> >>>>>>> <size package="12678975" installed="13047285" archive="13057760"/> >>>>>>> <location href="src/glibc-2.19-20.3.src.rpm"/> >>>>>>> <format> >>>>>>> <rpm:license>LGPL-2.1+ and SUSE-LGPL-2.1+-with-GCC-exception and >>>>>>> GPL-2.0+</rpm:license> >>>>>>> <rpm:vendor>SUSE LLC <https://www.suse.com/></rpm:vendor> >>>>>>> <rpm:group>System/Libraries</rpm:group> >>>>>>> <rpm:buildhost>sheep02</rpm:buildhost> >>>>>>> <rpm:sourcerpm/> >>>>>>> <rpm:header-range start="872" end="144334"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:requires> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="pwdutils"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="xz"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="fdupes"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="systemd-rpm-macros"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="libselinux-devel"/> >>>>>>> <rpm:entry name="makeinfo"/> >>>>>>> </rpm:requires> >>>>>>> </format> >>>>>>> </package> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Pavel Picka >>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Pavel Picka >>> Red Hat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > -- Pavel Picka Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
