David Davis

We're evaluating Pulp to potentially handle publishing our rpm metadata and it looks like it currently doesn't support this. I opened an issue though: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2432

No, we don't use modules and haven't had a publisher ask to use them. Thanks for checking though.

@sdherr thanks I actually uploaded the packages and confirmed that Pulp only stores one. I've attempted to generalize this issue.

Here's a copy of the primary.xml: ```xml bear noarch ceb0f0bb58be244393cc565e8ee5ef0ad36884d8ba8eec74542ff47d299a34c1 A dummy package of bear A dummy package of bear http://tstrachota.fedorapeople.org GPLv2 Internet/Applications smqe-ws15 bear-4.1-1.src.rpm camel noarch c5c34e1843847990d2c79b936309d6257279e26f907e20f9f58073a14525e1ef A dummy...

FYI, it sounds like we'll not be allowing users to set relative_path on upload so the package should [be named using nevra](https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/2537) and thus, this isn't going to be a...

We don't allow regular users to set the relative_path for packages but I think we want to allow admins to do so--let me double check on this. Would having a...

I checked and we don't the ability to set filenames when uploading rpms. > We'd also then attempt to fix already existing data by properly setting the package.location_href and content_artifact.relative_path...

We have a similar feature request: we'd also like to verify that the signature's key is in a list of accepted keys. Not sure if I should file a separate...

And also we'd be interested in the package upload or add to repository use case (as opposed to syncing).

We don't use on-demand content currently so we're not impacted by the first issue. That said, either option you raise sounds reasonable to me. ~~Regarding the second issue, I guess...