Thanks for the reply Michael, that's kind of what I expected. When Pulp no longer does scheduling within Pulp itself, that approach might make more sense, but for now I think I'm just going to tell the users they need to use 1:1 repos rather than try to converge them.
- Kodiak On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> wrote: > The recommended way to do this in Pulp would be to: > > - create one Pulp repo for each remote source and sync them as normal > - create a Pulp repo to hold the combined contents > - copy each repo's content into the combined repo > > Each time you did a sync on one of the repos, you would then re-copy its > contents into the combined repo. > > Michael > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Kodiak Firesmith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have a use-case that might not be the wisest but it exists in Satellite >> 5 and people wish to bring it forward into Pulp: >> >> People would like to be able to create meta-repos based on more than one >> upstream feed. For example, 'ELK2-EL7' could have a feed for community >> elasticsearch and community logstash. >> >> I'm looking for confirmation that this is intentionally not a feature in >> Pulp so that I can split these meta-repos up and say "sorry that's just how >> Pulp was designed". >> >> Is my understanding correct? >> >> Thanks! >> - Kodiak >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >> > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
