Add docs describing behavior of recursive flags #1289
Conversation
|
@dralley , @dkliban , could you review correctness of examples as well, please? @bherrin3 , let me know if the format of the docs works for you or if you have other suggestions. I didn't cover at all modular/non-modular RPM difference and repos with mixed content. I'm not sure if it's worth it. Let me know if any of you have preference/ideas what to add. |
|
@parthaa , your feedback is very welcome as well |
docs/tech-reference/yum-plugins.rst
Outdated
| @@ -620,11 +620,11 @@ configuration values are optional. | |||
| package signature verification. | |||
|
|
|||
| ``recursive`` Boolean flag. If true, units are copied together with their | |||
| "latest" dependencies. False by default. | |||
| "latest" dependencies. False by default. More information about its usage can be found in :ref:`advanced_copy_between_repositories`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be clearer if written as "If true, units are copied together with the latest versions of their dependencies".
docs/user-guide/features.rst
Outdated
| @@ -46,7 +46,10 @@ Pulp supports the following modularity_ repository content management use cases: | |||
| * publication of the modularity metadata with the repository publication | |||
|
|
|||
| * copy of one or more modules and/or module defaults between the repositories | |||
| * removal of one or more modules and/or module defaults from the repository | |||
|
|
|||
| * removal of one or more modules and/or module defaults from the repository, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think a semicolon would be better here? Nitpick, no big deal.
docs/user-guide/features.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| | Use case #1: copy module and its artifacts | ||
| | and module dependencies | ||
| | and atrifacts' *latest* dependencies |
docs/user-guide/features.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| | Use case #2: copy module and its artifacts | ||
| | and module dependencies | ||
| | and atrifacts' *missing* dependencies |
docs/user-guide/features.rst
Outdated
| |----baz-1.0.rpm | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| | Use case #3: copy RPM and its *missing* RPM dependencies |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| | Use case #3: copy RPM and its *missing* RPM dependencies | |
| | Use case #3: copy RPM and its *latest missing* RPM dependencies |
Only latest, correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, sounds about right
docs/user-guide/features.rst
Outdated
| |----bar-0.7.rpm | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| | Use case #1: copy module and its artifacts and atrifacts' *latest* dependencies |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| | Use case #1: copy module and its artifacts and atrifacts' *latest* dependencies | |
| | Use case #1: copy module and its artifacts and artifacts' *latest* dependencies |
| ``recursive_conservative`` takes precedence. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Erratum and related RPMs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Thank you for specifically adding this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@goosemania just adding a few notes.
Talked to the Fedora team about RPMs depending on modular repos/profiles, and while that is possible in the build env, I think it is out of scope for permutation testing.
Thanks for adding the examples and talking with me about the simple case being a real-world case.
Other than editorials, I don't see any logical misses. I will use this as the basis for re-review of the current content coverage.
Thanks!
closes #4371
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4371