Bo Maryniuk wrote: % > It's not uncommon to have the same machine registered with Spacewalk multiple % > times and use the same profile name / hostname / IP address for all these % > registrations. "myfantasticserver" simply won't be enough to uniquely identify % > the desired server -- only server id will be. % > % > Similarly, it's perfectly OK to have two packages with the same NEVRA pushed % > into one organization (for example RHEL + CentOS). In these situations, your % > concept would not be able to realiably identify desired packages -- only % > package id would be. % % But I would expect two packages would either have different checksum and/or in % different channels?
That's correct. But then you have to use NEVRA+checksum which is more complicated than simple id. % > While I understand that the thought of operating with human-compatible data % > seems appealing, I'm afraid it won't work with API, where we need to model % > functions in an orthogonal manner -- i.e. one function will give you system % > id(s), another one will give you package id(s) and a third one will take these % > two ids and instruct a specific chain to remove packages from a specific % > system. % % This are three calls. Fine with the software, like we've built for Android % for example, but quite bad if this is your admin script. Why is it quite bad? What's the vital difference? % Leaving the "by ID" still available, isn't it better to have a convenience % layer by name? It isn't unique. You may extend names with _something_ to make it unique but then you've just created more complicated id. Regards, -- Michael Mráka Satellite Engineering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
