Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-24 Thread Justin Sherrill 
I much prefer this solution (A single RPM Repository type), and i think 
just using 'location_href' for a rpm uniquness within a repo version 
makes a lot of sense, overall +1.


Justin

On 3/23/20 4:27 PM, Daniel Alley wrote:
I think, as long as the metadata is correct, using just the 
location_href would be OK.  It should contain all the other bits of 
information.


On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Davis > wrote:


A couple questions below.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko
mailto: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
mailto:ggai...@redhat.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban
mailto: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


___
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

Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread Daniel Alley 
I think, as long as the metadata is correct, using just the location_href
would be OK.  It should contain all the other bits of information.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Davis  wrote:

> A couple questions below.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
> 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  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban 
>>> 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
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread David Davis 
A couple questions below.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
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  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban  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

Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread Tatiana Tereshchenko 
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.
RPM package is still uniquely identified in Pulp by NEVRA +  checksum(aka
pkgId) + checksum type.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:33 PM Grant Gainey  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban  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

Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread Grant Gainey 
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban  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

Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread Pavel Picka 
I agree,
just usually it is not the same package, but two packages with the same
name with minor differences inside (e.g. optimization).



On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:01 PM Dennis Kliban  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.
>
> 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?
> ___
> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread Daniel Alley 
>
> 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?


+1

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM Dennis Kliban  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.
>
> 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?
> ___
> 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] SUSE repositories in Pulp

2020-03-23 Thread Dennis Kliban 
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.

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?
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev