A couple questions below. On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Clarification: > The proposal is to add the 'location_href' attribute to > the repo_key_fields, uniqueness constraint within a repository version, so > 2 packages with the same NEVRA but different location can be present in one > repo. > Why have nevra+relative_path instead of just relative_path? ie would it be possible for two packages in a repo version to have the same relative_paths but different nevras? > RPM package is still uniquely identified in Pulp by NEVRA + checksum(aka > pkgId) + checksum type. > What if a user has the same package in a repo at two different locations or the same package in two different repos at the different locations. Since relative_path is attached to the content unit, I think this would prevent this from happening? I wonder if uniqueness in Pulp should also have location_href/relative_path? > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:33 PM Grant Gainey <ggai...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> During last week's RPM team meeting, a concern was raised about using >>> the same repository type for both Red Hat and SUSE repositories. Since that >>> meeting I have only been able to identify a single difference between the >>> two repositories. SUSE repos can contain the same package in two different >>> locations in the same repository. Even though I just referred to this as a >>> difference, I don't actually believe that to be true. All RPM repositories >>> should be able to support this. >>> >> >> If I'm reading the discussion w/the RPM folks correctly, this is 'odd but >> legal' for rpm-repositories. That means that, while SUSE may be the only >> current example, there's nothing to keep some other distro/thirdparty from >> doing the exact same thing, and we'd have to handle it. >> >> >>> I propose that we not add a separate repository type for SUSE and simply >>> add the 'location' attribute of an RPM to it's uniqueness constraint. What >>> do you all think? >>> >> >> Yeah, concur. It feels messy - but only because the problem-domain itself >> is messy :( >> >> G >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> Grant Gainey >> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
