Feature #37729: Version option for deb filter rules - Katello - Foreman

Actions

Copy link

Feature #37729

closed

Version option for deb filter rules

Added by TJ Guthrie almost 2 years ago. Updated 10 months ago.

Status:

Closed

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

Category:

Content Views

Target version:

Katello 4.19.0

Difficulty:

Triaged:

Yes

Bugzilla link:

Pull request:

https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/11454

Fixed in Releases:

Katello 4.19.0

Found in Releases:

Katello 4.13.2

Red Hat JIRA:

Description

Hello,

Please add the ability to filter deb packages by version in a content view, similar to the way rpms can be filtered by version.

Example RPM Filter:
Content => Content Views => [Select Content View] => Filters => Create Filter
Name = Whitelist
Content type = RPM
Select Include Filter
Create filter

Content => Content Views => [Select Content View] => Filters => Whitelist => Add RPM rule
RPM Name = emacs
Architecture = amd64
Version = Equal to
Version = 24.3-23.el7

When creating a filter rule for the deb content type the version option is not displayed, only the name and architecture fields are displayed.

Thanks,
TJ

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Quirin Pamp almost 2 years ago · Edited

Triaged changed from No to Yes

This is a valid feature request. It would be a great feature to have, but there are some very significant technical hurdles to implementation, so there is no telling if and when this feature might land.

There was an effort at implementation some time back that ultimately failed to resolve/overcome the technical hurdles. From what I remember, the difficulty is that for this feature to have acceptable performance, it must be implemented on the DB-type level. And due to the nature of .deb Versions implementing a PostgreSQL extension that can correctly sort by .deb Version then requires root privileges during installation that the foreman-installer does not have. There may have been additional concerns about ensuring the correctness of the sorting algorithm. I don't remember all the details. There is a possibility we will eventually have another go at it, but not in the short term.

A somewhat related pulp_deb issue asking for the same DB functionality for the pulp_deb plugin: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_deb/issues/386

Actions

Copy link