<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear colleagues,</div><div><br></div><div>At the moment we have several places where we configure multiple rpm/deb repositories. Those are:</div><div><ol><li>Web UI (cluster settings tab) where we define repos for cluster deployment</li><li>Fuel-menu (bootstrap section) where we define repos for building ubuntu bootstrap image</li><li>Fuel-mirror where we define repos that are to be cloned (full or partial mirrors)</li></ol></div><div>I'd prefer all these places to provide the same UX. By that I mean that these components should use the same input data structure like this [0], i.e. a flat list of fully independent repositories (see an example below). First repo in the list is supposed to be a base OS repo (i.e. contains base packages like libc). </div><div><br></div><div>[</div><div> {</div><div> type: deb,</div><div> url: some-url,</div><div> section: some-section,</div><div> suite: some-suite,</div><div> priority: some-priority</div><div> },</div><div><div> {</div><div> type: deb,</div><div> url: another-url,</div><div> section: another-section,</div><div> suite: another-suite,</div><div> priority: another-priority</div><div> },</div></div><div>...</div><div>] </div><div><br></div><div>I'd like to focus on the fact that these repositories should be defined independently (no base url, no base suite, etc.) That makes little sense to speculate about consistency of a particular repository. We only should talk about consistency of the whole list of repositories together.</div><div><br></div><div>I'll try to explain. In the real world we usually deal with sets of repositories which look like this:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty/">http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty/</a><br></div><div><a href="http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/">http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/</a><br></div><div><a href="http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-security/">http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-security/</a><br></div><div><a href="http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0/">http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0/</a><br></div><div><a href="http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0-updates/">http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0-updates/</a><br></div><div><a href="http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0-security/">http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0-security/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>As you can see these repositories have common hosts and base suites and it instills us to think that repositories should not be defined separately which is wrong. This special case does not break the whole approach. It is just a special case. Repositories are nothing more than just sets of packages that can depend on each other forming a tree when taken together. Package relation does matter, not repository location, not suite name. Parsing package tree for a set of repositories we can easily figure out whether this set is consistent or not (e.g. python-packetary allows to do this).</div><div><br></div><div>Taking into account the above, I'd say UI should allow a user to define repositories independently not forcing to use special patterns like suite + suite-updates + suite-security, not forcing repositories to be located on the same host. That means we should modify fuel-menu bootstrap section which currently allows a user to define a base url that is then used to form a group of repos (base, base-updates, base-security). Besides, it contradicts to our use case when we put mosX.Y locally on the master node while mosX.Y-updates and mosX.Y-security are supposed to be available online.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you guys think of that?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[0] <a href="https://github.com/openstack/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/fixtures/openstack.yaml#L2006-L2053">https://github.com/openstack/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/fixtures/openstack.yaml#L2006-L2053</a></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div>Vladimir Kozhukalov</div></div></div>
</div>