pkg.mod_repo is Wrong

[zhausong]

salt-master,salt-minion version is 0.16.4 from epel repo with rpm install.
On master run cmd like this

salt node1 pkg.mod_repo epel-source enabled=1 gpgcheck=1

node1:
    ----------
    /etc/yum.repos.d/epel_sohu.repo:
        ----------
        epel-source:
            ----------
            __pub_arg:
                - epel-source
                - enabled=1
                - gpgcheck=1
            __pub_fun:
                pkg.mod_repo
            __pub_jid:
                20131008082431705781
            __pub_tgt:
                node1
            __pub_tgt_type:
                glob
            __pub_user:
                root
            baseurl:
                http://mirrors.sohu.com/fedora-epel/6Server/x86_64/
            enabled:
                1
            gpgcheck:
                1
            gpgkey:
                file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-6
            name:
                Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 6 - $basearch - Source

On minion

before run "salt node1 pkg.mod_repo epel-source enabled=1 gpgcheck=1" like this

cat epel_sohu.repo

[epel-source]
name=Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 6 - $basearch - Source
baseurl=http://mirrors.sohu.com/fedora-epel/6Server/x86_64/
enabled=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-6
gpgcheck=1

when run "salt node1 pkg.mod_repo epel-source enabled=1 gpgcheck=1" like this

cat epel_sohu.repo

[epel-source]
__pub_user=root
__pub_arg=['epel-source', 'enabled=1', 'gpgcheck=1']
name=Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 6 - $basearch - Source
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-6
enabled=1
baseurl=http://mirrors.sohu.com/fedora-epel/6Server/x86_64/
__pub_fun=pkg.mod_repo
__pub_jid=20131008082431705781
__pub_tgt=node1
gpgcheck=1
__pub_tgt_type=glob

the result is wrong.

[basepi]

Updated original post with triple backticks and whitespace for readability.

This does look like it's wrong. Was it right on a previous version or did you just start using mod_repo?

In any case, thanks for the report.

[zhausong]

@basepi thank you!
I clone the github of current version,the problem is already exist!

[basepi]

Wait, I'm having a hard time following. Does the problem exist in the current develop branch? And is it a new bug or did it always exist?

[zhausong]

Thank you @basepi, this bug is always exist,from 0.16, 0.17 and the current develop!