We also use Pulp in this exact way. Puppet drops down repo definitions to each host which are associated with the host's Puppet environment (dev, qa, prod). The repo definitions point to "snapshot" repositories in Pulp. We promote packages up through the environments as you are describing.
We do not use the pulp-consumer client. Instead we trigger "yum updates" using mCollective on groups of hosts. Josh From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trey Dockendorf Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 12:22 PM To: Mathew Crane Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Using Pulp in a server-only configuration? Your use case matches exactly how we use Pulp to manage repo contents for a HPC cluster where a consumer service is not possible. I've had no issues and just push out repo files for all pulp managed repos using Puppet. Since I'm using self signed certs still in Pulp and our network is private I made sure to serve all repos via http. - Trey On Jan 21, 2015 3:06 PM, "Mathew Crane" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In my environment, it doesn't really make sense to have a single point propagating changes to numerous hosts. Instead we'd opt to have the consumers pull down from the Pulp server manually. I understand that this hides a portion of Pulp's featureset (consumer management and reporting) but what I'm more interested in is the ability to manually 'promote' packages into different repos with required or updated deps on the server. Is there any downside to keeping the consumers 'dumb' and hitting the Pulp-managed repositories manually via standard /etc/yum.repos.d/*.conf files? _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
