Unable to sync multiple releases in single deb repo
In order to keep the same relative-url to match upstream mirrors, trying to sync the releases: xenial, xenial-updates, xenial-security
CLI: pulp-admin deb repo create --repo-id 'xenial' --relative-url '/ubuntu/' --feed 'http://mirrors.us.kernel.org/ubuntu/' --releases 'xenial,xenial-updates,xenial-security' --components 'main' --architectures 'amd64'
This will allow a mirror like: http://mirrors.us.kernel.org/ubuntu/dists/ (see xenial*)
CLI: pulp-admin deb repo sync run --repo-id 'xenial'
An exception then occurs: "Exception: Checksum did not match"
Add the distribution field to the DB models
Within a standard Debian repository structure, the term "distribution" refers to the unique string given by the path segment between the "dists/" folder, and some "Release" file (without the trailing slash).
Since each "Release" file in the directory structure is associated with exactly one unique distribution string, the terms "distribution" and "release" can be (and often are) used interchangably.
The distribution string is most commonly (but not always) given by either the "codename" or the "suite". The pulp_deb implementation prior to this commit, has assumed that the distribution string is always equal to codename, and has therefore imposed a uniqueness constraint on the codename for all releases/distributions within a single repository.
Since upstream repository sources make no such assumption and are not necessarily structured using the codename, this has lead to a plathora of unpredictable and buggy behaviour when synchronizing upstream repositories with 'codename != distribution'.
This change fixes these problems by introducing and using a "distribution" field for both the units_deb_release and units_deb_component collections.
#1 Updated by taylorcw over 2 years ago
I found part of the issue is with Ubuntu's release file has Suite is the sub-dist folder and Codename as the overall dist.
xenial-security = https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/ubuntu/dists/xenial-security/Release
xenial-updates = https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/ubuntu/dists/xenial-updates/Release
xenial = https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/ubuntu/dists/xenial/Release
The following at least corrects the relative-url path. It doesn't fix the checksum issue as I think importers/sync.py is using the release.codename to compare vs release.suite. (Haven't had a change to confirm yet)
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pulp_deb/plugins/distributors/distributor.py < repometa = aptrepo.AptRepoMeta( codename=codename, components=[comp.name for comp in rel_components], architectures=list(architectures), ) > repometa = aptrepo.AptRepoMeta( codename=release_unit.suite, components=[comp.name for comp in rel_components], architectures=list(architectures), )
Would it be possible to use the release tag as the repo vs relaying on the "Release" file inside the repo?
#3 Updated by taylorcw over 2 years ago
Hi, sure thing. If a repo is created like this:
pulp-admin deb repo create --repo-id 'update-channels' --relative-url '/ubuntu/' --feed 'http://mirrors.us.kernel.org/ubuntu/' --components 'main,universe,multiverse,restricted' --architectures 'amd64' --releases "xenial-updates,trusty-updates"
Could the distributor publish with "/ubuntu/dists/xenial-update" & "/ubuntu/dists/trusty-update" which is what the user provides as the release name. Today, it's using "/ubuntu/dists/" + codename
#5 Updated by quba42 over 1 year ago
I have been working on the relevant code for unrelated reasons so I feel qualified to add my two cents.
The problem I see, is that there is no clean way of fixing this problem that does not risk creating new problems for other cases. Using the user supplied release name in the `MetadataStep` of `distributor.py` would currently make this step dependent on information stored in the `repo_importer` data base collection. This is not desirable since distributors and importers are meant to exist independently of one another.
A better solution might be to add an additional `distribution` field to the `units_deb_release` collection to store the needed information where it belongs. This would require a data base change and by extension a data base migration. Not a trivial fix.
For now the workaround is to sync these ubuntu releases in separate repositories.
#11 Updated by quba42 about 1 year ago
I initially expected this PR (https://github.com/pulp/pulp_deb/pull/83) to solve this issue.
However, it appears that this is actually an issue within "python-debpkgr".
I suspect debpkgr is tripping up for a similar reason. (That is, it is using "codename" as an internal dict key, even though codename is not always unique within a single repository.)
My PR fixes this kind of issue within pulp_deb but not within debpkgr.
Until someone volunteers a fix for python-debpkgr, the only solution/work around is to keep the various "xenial" releases (i.e "xenial", "xenial-updates", "xenial-security", etc.) in separate repositories.
#13 Updated by Milesmsksth 6 months ago
#16 Updated by Micheal786 4 months ago
Agree With Quba
The problem I see is that there is no clean way of fixing this problem that does not risk creating new problems for other cases. Using the user-supplied release name in the
distributor.py would currently make this step dependent on information stored in the
repo_importer database collection. This is not desirable since distributors and importers are meant to exist independently of one another.
However, it appears that this is actually an issue within "python-debpkgr". I suspect debpkgr is tripping up for a similar reason. (That is, it is using "codename" as an internal dict key, even though codename is not always unique within a single repository.)
#21 Updated by Anonymous about 2 months ago
#23 Updated by pinknemo13 about 2 months ago
Brilliant Blog! I might want to thank for the endeavors you have made recorded as a hard copy this post. I am trusting a similar best work from you later on too. I needed to thank you for this sites! A debt of gratitude is in order for sharing. Extraordinary sites! https://get-9apps.com https://get-9apps.com/download/ https://get-cartoonhd.com
#26 Updated by blackmartapk 28 days ago
Excellent Blog! I would like to thank for the efforts you have made in writing this post. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. I wanted to thank you for this websites! Thanks for sharing. Great websites! [[https://blackmartalpha.co/]] https://blackmartalpha.co/
Please register to edit this issue