Issue #6082


Issue #6398: Completely rework the pulp_deb documentation

Fail to install from pulp-deb distribution using apt install

Added by yogev about 4 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Start date:
Due date:
Estimated time:
2. Medium
Version - Debian:
Platform Release:
Target Release - Debian:
CentOS 7
Sprint Candidate:
API Bindings


I started a setup on prem with the following packages:

pulp-deb (2.0.0b4) pulp-file (0.1.0) pulp-rpm (3.0.0) pulpcore (3.0.1)

running on CentOS 7

RPM plugin works well. For DEB i pretty much do the same things -

  • create repository
  • upload artifacts
  • create content from the artifacts
  • create publication and distribution.

All the steps above seem to work OK.

then i add the following configuration to the client:

cat > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/lightos.list << EOF
deb [trusted=yes] http://repo00/pulp/content/yogev/yogev/workspace_duros/deb/ default all

and run

apt update

i get the following response from running update:

Ign:1 http://repo00/pulp/content/yogev/yogev/workspace_duros/deb default InRelease
Get:2 http://repo00/pulp/content/yogev/yogev/workspace_duros/deb default Release [1193 B]
Ign:3 http://repo00/pulp/content/yogev/yogev/workspace_duros/deb default Release.gpg                    
Hit:4 bionic InRelease                  
Get:5 bionic-security InRelease [88.7 kB]
Get:6 bionic-updates InRelease [88.7 kB]         
Get:7 bionic-backports InRelease [74.6 kB]                   
Get:8 bionic-backports/universe amd64 Packages [4242 B]
Fetched 257 kB in 1s (328 kB/s)   
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
9 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.
W: Invalid 'Date' entry in Release file /var/lib/apt/lists/partial/repo00_pulp_content_yogev_yogev_workspace%5fduros_deb_dists_default_Release

I can see my files under http://repo00/pulp/content/yogev/yogev/workspace_duros/deb/pool/

I can see that the release file is pointing to these files.

but when i run:

apt install lightos-monitoring

i get the following error:

root@7a4bbdfe4f20:/wd# apt install lightos-monitoring
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package lightos-monitoring

After reading the pulp-deb docs I fail to see what I'm missing.


  1. i get a working about the Date not up to date - why? does it metter?
  2. i can't seem to control the codename and the distribution - there is no mentioning about these attributes in the help of pulp-deb.
  3. I see in the code that there is API for release_file but i don't see any docs or example on how to use it.
  4. I fail to install the packages even though I uploaded the deb files to the repo.
Actions #1

Updated by about 4 years ago

  • Project changed from Migration Plugin to Debian Support
Actions #2

Updated by mdellweg about 4 years ago

I think this is a bug that was fixed after releasing that beta. Maybe it's time for a new one. The actual package files appeared in the wrong directories.

The 'Date' problem is just a warning, we can still improve this. (Can you create a new ticket for this?)

The ReleaseFile content is meant only for synching to preserve the original upstream metadata.

Yes the documentation is pretty sparse.

Actions #3

Updated by quba42 almost 4 years ago

  • Related to Issue #6398: Completely rework the pulp_deb documentation added
Actions #4

Updated by quba42 over 3 years ago

  • The "Date" issue should be resolved with #6869
  • Reworking the docs to explain about the difference between simple and structured publishing is WIP, but will hopefully clear up the user confusion once done.
  • As to why packages cannot be installed, I suppose we should retest this for uploaded packages (published with simple publish). If it works with the latest release, I vote we close this ticket.
Actions #5

Updated by mdellweg over 3 years ago

  • Parent issue set to #6398
Actions #6

Updated by quba42 over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from NEW to CLOSED - DUPLICATE

I am closing this issue since I believe the problems described are either fixed in newer versions of the plugin, or covered by other (more focused) issues.

If you feel there is still a specific point not addressed by the newest beta releases (or any other open issues), feel free to open a new issue for them.

Thanks again for the feedback, these issue reports are a big help!

Also available in: Atom PDF