Pulp: Issueshttps://pulp.plan.io/https://pulp.plan.io/favicon.ico2021-08-19T14:09:05ZPulp
Planio RPM Support - Task #9259 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): workflow-docs should use pulp-cli instead of httpiehttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/92592021-08-19T14:09:05Zggainey
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2314":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2314" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2314</a></p>
<hr>
<p>Probably shouldn't do this unless/until <strong>all</strong> workflows are supported by pulp-cli commands - mixing pulp-cli and httpie is Very Confusing to the user.</p>
<p>Putting this up as a placeholder for docs-day</p> RPM Support - Test #8809 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): Better tests for metadata mirroringhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/88092021-05-24T19:54:30Zdalleydalley@redhat.com
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2277":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2277" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2277</a></p>
<hr>
<p>We need a fixture repository with some of the extra files, such as repomd.xml.asc (metadata signature), extra_files.json, .treeinfo, possibly licenses, multiple package directories / package locations, extra repomd entries that Pulp doesn't natively care about, etc. And then we need to test that mirroring works properly with such repos.</p> RPM Support - Story #8673 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): Auto-publishing should be more fault-toleranthttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/86732021-04-30T14:56:08Zsskracic@redhat.comsskracic@redhat.com
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2273":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2273" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2273</a></p>
<hr>
<p>I admit the title is a bit vague.</p>
<p>During auto-publishing sync of a very large repository (rhel-7-server-rpms), the <code>rq</code> process got killed by oom-killer sometime in the middle of the publishing step. So the new repository version (1) got created, but accompanying
publication did not.</p>
<p>On the subsequent sync runs, the repository did not get published, as no new content was available to sync, hence a new repository version was not created, which in turn should trigger publication and distribution update.</p>
<p>Of course, the repo can still be published and distributed using the non-autopublishing REST API, but I wonder whether the behavior was intended.</p> RPM Support - Test #8335 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): Need a new fixture - advisory, same date/version, ...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/83352021-03-03T20:04:27Zggainey
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2268":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2268" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2268</a></p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8249" class="external">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8249</a> changed the failure-case in advisory.resolve_advisory_conflict - need a fixture to reflect the failure-case, and an update to test_sync.py to re-enable test_sync_advisory_incomplete_pgk_list</p> RPM Support - Test #6605 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): Re-enable test_sync_advisory_no_updated_datehttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/66052020-04-29T18:37:26Zppicka
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2245":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2245" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2245</a></p>
<hr>
<p>If advisory has same ID, version but update_date missing sync will fail.</p>
<p>If updated_date missing in advisory issued_date is not take into consideration in advisory conflict resolution time.</p>
<p>How to reproduce:</p>
<pre><code>git clone https://github.com/pulp/pulp-fixtures
cd pulp-fixtures
# create fixtures
make fixtures/rpm-unsigned
make fixtures/rpm-advisory-no-update-date
</code></pre>
<ol>
<li>create repository</li>
<li>sync remote rpm-unsigned</li>
<li>re-sync same repo with rpm-advisory-no-update-date remote</li>
</ol>
<pre><code>"error" {
"description": "'<' not supported between instances of 'datetime.datetime' and 'NoneType'"
...}
</code></pre> RPM Support - Test #6425 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): Support compressed and uncompressed version of mod...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/64252020-03-31T19:50:25Zfao89
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2240":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2240" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2240</a></p> RPM Support - Test #6349 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): Test that upload of RPM with large filelists does ...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/63492020-03-16T19:33:49Zfao89
<p><strong>Ticket moved to GitHub</strong>: "pulp/pulp_rpm/2236":<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2236" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2236</a></p>
<hr>
<ol>
<li>Create an RPM repo.</li>
<li>Verify whether the file <code>RPM_LARGE_METADATA</code> can be uploaded into the repo without errors.</li>
</ol>
<p>RPM_LARGE_METADATA = <a href="https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/rpm_large_metadata/nodejs-babel-preset-es2015-6.6.0-2.el6.noarch.rpm" class="external">https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/rpm_large_metadata/nodejs-babel-preset-es2015-6.6.0-2.el6.noarch.rpm</a></p> RPM Support - Story #5740 (CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE): As a user, advisory collection names are uni...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/57402019-11-18T11:56:24Zttereshcttereshc@redhat.com
<a name="Background"></a>
<h3 >Background<a href="#Background" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h3>
<p>As a part of <a class="issue tracker-3 status-11 priority-6 priority-default closed" title="Story: As a user, a repository version has no advisories with the same id (CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE)" href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4295">#4295</a>, two advisories can be merged into a new one which contains combined package list.</p>
<a name="Motivation"></a>
<h3 >Motivation<a href="#Motivation" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h3>
<p>Each package list consists of collections (usually 1 , but can be 0 or 2+ as well). Each collection has a name which is expected to be unique by dnf/yum client. If the name is not unique, only a subset of packages will be updated when advisory is applied on a user system.</p>
<a name="Solution"></a>
<h3 >Solution<a href="#Solution" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h3>
<p>Ensure the uniqueness of collection names at the time of combining two advisories into one.<br>
If names are unique, preserve original names.<br>
If names are the same, make them unique (e.g. append an ordinal number to the existing name)</p> RPM Support - Story #5356 (CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE): As a user, I can download a configuration fo...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/53562019-08-27T12:28:24Zdkliban@redhat.com
<p>It is common for repositories to include a repo file that can be used to add the repository to a client. This file can be manually placed into /etc/yum.repos.d/ or it can be specified as a parameter to yum/dnf. e.g.</p>
<pre><code>dnf config-manager --add-repo http://example.com/pulp/content/some/repo/path/config.repo
</code></pre> RPM Support - Story #3779 (CLOSED - WONTFIX): As a user, I want to publish/export Text-Only erratahttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/37792018-06-21T17:43:50Zttereshcttereshc@redhat.com
<p>Pulp filters out errata without packages during publish.<br>
So between remote source and publish result there can be difference in the number of errata.<br>
These errata will never be shown as applicable, it's informative in case someone reads it.</p>
<p>Example of text-only errata:<br>
- when container image is released<br>
- when packages getting deprecated in that repo are announced</p>
<p>These errata don't have any RPM packages associated with them.</p>
<p>Current behaviour is not a bug and such errata are filtered out on purpose.<br>
When implementing this RFE, make sure to distinguish between an erratum which has never had packages in its pkglist and an erratum which doesn't have packages because they are not present in a repo.</p> RPM Support - Story #1391 (CLOSED - WONTFIX): As a user, I can distribute the *contents* of an isohttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/13912015-12-01T21:53:12Zsemyerssean.myers@redhat.com
<p>It would be nice if the iso files in a repo would somehow have their contents exposed within a pulp repo. In addition to making the iso functionality actually useful (and not just a file copier, as mentioned in <a class="issue tracker-4 status-9 priority-6 priority-default closed" title="Refactor: Rename the ISO plugins to be "File" plugins (CLOSED - WONTFIX)" href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/119">#119</a>), this would be necessary if we wanted to use pulp to publish kickstart distributions for opensuse/SLES.</p> RPM Support - Refactor #800 (CLOSED - WONTFIX): get_package_xml is duplicatedhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/8002015-03-19T17:26:43Zdgregor@redhat.comdgregor@redhat.com
<p>The method is in both of the following files:</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/master/plugins/pulp_rpm/yum_plugin/metadata.py" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/master/plugins/pulp_rpm/yum_plugin/metadata.py</a><br>
<a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/master/plugins/pulp_rpm/plugins/importers/yum/parse/rpm.py" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/master/plugins/pulp_rpm/plugins/importers/yum/parse/rpm.py</a></p>
<p>They are almost identical. The latter provides the ability to define the checksum type.</p> RPM Support - Story #226 (CLOSED - WONTFIX): RFE function for delta publish of rpm reposhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/2262015-02-19T01:13:00Zmagnus.jernberg@gmail.commagnus.jernberg@gmail.com
<p>+<span>+ This bug was initially created as a clone of <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084483" class="external">Bugzilla Bug #1084483</a> +</span>+</p>
<p>Description of problem:</p>
<p>Description of problem:<br>
When publishing a RPM repository containing loads of repos, the publish function is turning out as a bottle neck in our continuous delivery workflow. One reason for this is that the publish will republish the complete repository.<br>
I would like the publish step to consider the changes made to the repo and only recalculate the metadata for those rpm's.</p>
<p>Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):<br>
2.3 and 2.4</p>
<p>How reproducible:<br>
load your repo with 100 000 RPM's and publish.</p>
<p>Steps to Reproduce:<br>
1.<br>
2.<br>
3.</p>
<p>Actual results:</p>
<p>Expected results:<br>
The time spent calculate the metadata in a publish should only be dependent on the added and deleted rpms in the repository.</p>
<p>Additional info:</p> RPM Support - Story #216 (CLOSED - DUPLICATE): As a user, all RPM NVRAs are unique per repohttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/2162015-02-19T01:12:27Zdgregor@redhat.comdgregor@redhat.com
<p>+<span>+ This bug was initially created as a clone of <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057241" class="external">Bugzilla Bug #1057241</a> +</span>+</p>
<p>Description of problem:</p>
<p>Pulp supports having multiple RPMs that have the same name-version-release.architecture values. This is good in a number of cases. However, we never want to have both the beta-signed and gold-signed copies of an RPM in the same repo at the same time if that repo being published as a Yum repository. It's undefined and unsupported to have different RPMs with the same NVRA in the same Yum repository.</p>
<p>Please modify the Yum distributor to fail when trying to publish a yum repository if there are multiple RPMs with the same NVRA.</p>
<p>Additionally, please modify the Yum importer to block imports (including copy operations) that would result in a repo having multiple RPMs with the same NVRA. Perhaps make this configurable for repos that aren't being published for Yum.</p> RPM Support - Story #213 (CLOSED - WONTFIX): Add upload option to have an rpm/srpm/drpm/etc overw...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2132015-02-19T01:12:17Zstefan.cocora@gmail.comstefan.cocora@gmail.com
<p>+<span>+ This bug was initially created as a clone of <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041317" class="external">Bugzilla Bug #1041317</a> +</span>+</p>
<p>Description of problem:</p>
<p>Created attachment 835839<br>
Metadata file with duplicate packages that have the same name/version/release number but have different checksums</p>
<p>Description of problem:<br>
Uploading to pulp an rpm with the same name/version/release but with a different checksum doesn't overwrite the existing one, it creates 2 versions of the same rpm package.</p>
<p>Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):<br>
pulp-server-2.2.0-1.el6.noarch running on CentOS 6.4</p>
<p>How reproducible:<br>
Upload to a pulp repo the package <name>-0.0.1-70 , publish the pulp repo.<br>
Upload the same <name>-0.0.1-70 package but with a different checksum.<br>
On querying pulp will return 2 versions of the same package name and yum install, on a server using the pulp server as yum repo, will fail</p>
<p>[stefcoco@pulp-001 ~]$ pulp-admin rpm repo content rpm --repo-id cps-stable --match 'name=goggins' --match 'version=0.0.1' --match 'r<br>
elease=70'<br>
Arch: noarch<br>
Buildhost: inf-jks-002.cpp.o.itv.net.uk<br>
Checksum: 5f29f29217bf710260f04fa080bb199e49610851eb5806de2b95aed02416b464<br>
Checksumtype: sha256<br>
Description: Goggins java app<br>
Epoch: 0<br>
Filename: goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch.rpm<br>
License: Proprietary<br>
Name: goggins<br>
Provides: config(goggins) = 0.0.1-70-0, goggins = 0.0.1-70-0<br>
Release: 70<br>
Requires: /bin/sh, /bin/sh, java-1.6.0-openjdk<br>
Vendor: None<br>
Version: 0.0.1</p>
<p>Arch: noarch<br>
Buildhost: inf-jks-002.cpp.o.itv.net.uk<br>
Checksum: d2dec47020faa72d01bb93117181659231bb3fd12334808afbb372198c91b284<br>
Checksumtype: sha256<br>
Description: Goggins java app<br>
Epoch: 0<br>
Filename: goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch.rpm<br>
License: Proprietary<br>
Name: goggins<br>
Provides: config(goggins) = 0.0.1-70-0, goggins = 0.0.1-70-0<br>
Release: 70<br>
Requires: /bin/sh, /bin/sh, java-1.6.0-openjdk<br>
Vendor: None<br>
Version: 0.0.1</p>
<p>Yum install fails with:</p>
<p>[Errno -1] Package does not match intended download. Suggestion: run yum --enablerepo=itv-pulp-cps-stable clean metadata<br>
Trying other mirror.</p>
<p>Error Downloading Packages:<br>
goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch: failure: goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch.rpm from itv-pulp-cps-stable: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try.</p>
<p>because yum metadata contains the same package twice with different checksums.<br>
Have a look at the attached metadata files to see what I mean ( search for goggins rel=70 )</p>
<p>Steps to Reproduce:<br>
1. Create a pulp repo<br>
2. Upload an rpm to it and publish it<br>
3. Upload a second rpm with the same name/version/release but with a different checksum and publish it<br>
4. Try installing, on another server, from this repository via regular yum repos.</p>
<p>Actual results:<br>
Pulp treats these packages as 2 different packages but yum install fails with</p>
<p>[Errno -1] Package does not match intended download. Suggestion: run yum --enablerepo=itv-pulp-cps-stable clean metadata<br>
Trying other mirror.</p>
<p>Error Downloading Packages:<br>
goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch: failure: goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch.rpm from itv-pulp-cps-stable: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try.</p>
<p>Expected results:</p>
<p>Pulp should re-place the current package with the one that is being uploaded. That will create just one checksum inside the metadata files and yum would be able to install that package.</p>
<p>Additional info:</p>
<p>--- Additional comment from <a href="mailto:stefan.cocora@gmail.com" class="email">stefan.cocora@gmail.com</a> at 12/12/2013 14:53:47 ---</p>
<p>The published repo, on disk, only contains one package version of goggins rel=70 but the metadata file contains 2 checksums which breaks yum.</p>
<p>[stefcoco@pulp-001 ~]$ ll /var/lib/pulp/published/http/repos/cps-stable/<br>
total 60<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 144 Nov 27 16:58 dawkins-0.0.1-118.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/dawkins/0.0.1/118/noarch/c5b2b5<br>
b48ab700ef8f2c15fb46dff6623052b8e328b95a8fdf6728520c109bfd/dawkins-0.0.1-118.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 140 Nov 27 16:58 fnord-0.0.1-215.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/fnord/0.0.1/215/noarch/a9a196e85d<br>
95de9d9fdc1a6f675fdcc55f248b62f99514515b11a9546b9bee46/fnord-0.0.1-215.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 142 Nov 27 16:58 goggins-0.0.1-61.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/goggins/0.0.1/61/noarch/6b1f0459<br>
16b9aa6b6425f9249af15c3475325193d5b379cc5d270c1404c5fbef/goggins-0.0.1-61.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 142 Nov 29 16:01 goggins-0.0.1-65.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/goggins/0.0.1/65/noarch/152fa050<br>
6d259da3652ebb849f9832e65ed3db5804496c0ee4974891ff85eca1/goggins-0.0.1-65.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 142 Dec 12 12:15 goggins-0.0.1-67.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/goggins/0.0.1/67/noarch/97df5a25<br>
e4ee78c0cdcc2ae1b71a7b43e0acca8c87eabcca93133fdc1fec2caa/goggins-0.0.1-67.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 142 Dec 12 11:29 goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/goggins/0.0.1/70/noarch/d2dec470<br>
20faa72d01bb93117181659231bb3fd12334808afbb372198c91b284/goggins-0.0.1-70.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 146 Nov 27 16:58 greendale-0.0.1-87.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/greendale/0.0.1/87/noarch/f2b9<br>
e97e9bd6214e6d04f9dda523d752bac9f6d2b13e98ff94ef17a2cdb1ce82/greendale-0.0.1-87.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 136 Nov 27 16:58 jess-0.0.1-58.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/jess/0.0.1/58/noarch/1c7be39c2d4284<br>
ece87f3eb0b1d98ad8102d102a9535559ed4c1cc26a60b4461/jess-0.0.1-58.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 142 Nov 27 16:58 minerva-0.0.1-40.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/minerva/0.0.1/40/noarch/97d40821<br>
de5be66b2fc6f04538b3185645ae21a1b90bdd9c71b5338ab25c5e28/minerva-0.0.1-40.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 67 Nov 27 14:22 Packages -> /var/lib/pulp/working/repos/cps-stable/distributors/yum_distributor<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 134 Nov 27 16:58 pat-0.0.1-75.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/pat/0.0.1/75/noarch/c15cd481d2349fab<br>
28af275f3a3374969f28829ac759f173981bed3fea2acf47/pat-0.0.1-75.noarch.rpm<br>
drwxr-xr-x 2 apache apache 4096 Dec 12 12:17 repodata<br>
drwxr-xr-x 2 apache apache 4096 Dec 12 12:15 repodata.old<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 148 Nov 27 16:58 swagger-ui-0.0.1-39.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/swagger-ui/0.0.1/39/noarch/a4<br>
5184d839b5459b1b9d4fc5f7d9089b1388be957be5d02560f0476308755c45/swagger-ui-0.0.1-39.noarch.rpm<br>
lrwxrwxrwx 1 apache apache 140 Nov 27 16:58 venus-0.0.1-127.noarch.rpm -> /var/lib/pulp/content/rpm/venus/0.0.1/127/noarch/5878912453<br>
6dca80510c3dbfe2a511644e6f0d82194e37a3c34f05a8981119c3/venus-0.0.1-127.noarch.rpm</p>
<p>--- Additional comment from <a href="mailto:bcourt@redhat.com" class="email">bcourt@redhat.com</a> at 12/12/2013 15:12:16 ---</p>
<p>To add clarification here. The problem is that pulp is using the checksum as part of the uniqueness key for an RPM. A shorter term fix could be to remove the checksum value from the uniqueness constraint and keep the checksum type as part of the uniqueness constraint.</p>
<p>In the long term the request requires decoupling the checksum type & value from the uniqueness key and having pulp generate multiple checksum types and the various checksum values for a particular rpm.</p>
<p>--- Additional comment from <a href="mailto:mhrivnak@redhat.com" class="email">mhrivnak@redhat.com</a> at 12/18/2013 17:09:47 ---</p>
<p>We will consider validation in the yum distributor at publish time as a future feature.</p>