RPM Support

@Justin, do we know of any repositories in the wild where the updated_date field doesn't exist? Basically, is it valid or malformed repodata?

I did some testing and found that while there are deficiencies in Pulp that we can fix, they are not actually the cause of this problem. It looks like createrepo_c has problems with this. I wrote modified one of the createrepo_c test cases and printed the resulting XML and I found the exact same problem.

  <update from="from" status="status" type="type" version="version">
    <id>id</id>
    <title>title</title>
    <issued date="2021-01-28 00:59:17"/>
    <updated date="6449-03-17 07:00:00"/>
    <rights>rights</rights>
    <release>release</release>
    <pushcount>pushcount</pushcount>
    <severity>severity</severity>
    <summary>summary</summary>
    <description>description</description>
    <solution>solution</solution>
    <reboot_suggested>True</reboot_suggested>
    <references/>
    <pkglist/>
  </update>

You can see that even though they check whether it's a datetime type or None, they don't actually handle the case where it is None.

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c/blob/master/src/python/updaterecord-py.c#L401-L416

If it's valid metadata, the next step would be to file a BZ with createrepo_c.

It looks like SUSE updateinfo is lacking this field, which makes it valid.

PR: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1928