Debian Support

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.

For example:
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?

I am not sure what you mean by "release tag". Can you please elaborate?

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

Any thoughts on getting this fixed? Thanks

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.

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.

I read this article! I hope you will continue to have such articles to share with everyone! thank you!