New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement .repo file for RPM repositories #1687
Conversation
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
1 similar comment
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
|
Wouldn't it be easier to generate this file as part of a publication making it a PublishedArtifact instead of creating it on the fly in the content app? EDIT: No, that's impossible (see https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5356#note-4) |
|
@mdellweg Yes it would be, but then users would have regenerate a publication each time they want to use it with a new Distribution. |
3034cac
to
d041fbd
Compare
|
Hello @pieterlexis! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found: There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻 Comment last updated at 2020-05-08 09:20:34 UTC |
7c1cafe
to
f1898e5
Compare
0cefd62
to
405a8f4
Compare
405a8f4
to
41bebeb
Compare
41bebeb
to
ef3c4a9
Compare
|
I read through the code and it all looks sane to me. |
b2e06fc
to
5ca3782
Compare
9d0f963
to
6fc2e5a
Compare
d34dcca
to
4ca05db
Compare
4ca05db
to
ca26ebf
Compare
closes #5356 Required PR: pulp/pulpcore#678
ca26ebf
to
6b3b149
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you! This is a great feature.
Closes #5356
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5356
Opened early for review, this needs tests and docs.
Basically, this PR makes the content server serve config.repo files at
$CONTENT_PATH_PREFIX/rpm/$BASE_PATH/config.repothat look something like this:Or, when a metadata signing service is enabled:
Additionally, when the signing service is enabled, theres also a public key served at
$CONTENT_PATH_PREFIX/rpm/$BASE_PATH/public.key.@dkliban mentions in the issue:
However, the RPM repos did not have this prefix yet. Should the content for RPM always be prefixed with this or shall I remove it from this PR, pending a discussion on this?