Re: wrong correspondence between Packages and Translation-en [was: Re: Description-less Packages indices]
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 18:53 +0100, Davide Prina wrote:
> Packages (P) and Translation-en (T) have some differences, I don't
> understand that there are correct:
> * some packages are in P, but not in T (today I don't found one);
> * some packages are in T, but not in P (lib32z1);
Which architecture and suite are you looking at the packages file for?
lib32z1 only exists on amd64 and kfreebsd-amd64, so if you're using
another architecture then it's not surprising that it's not included.
> * some packages are in T and P but with different versions (libace-6.0.1);
I'm a little confused here. The translation file only contains one
stanza for libace-6.0.1. In sid the binary package only exists on
armel, so if you're looking at other architectures then it won't be
present in the packages file.
> * some packages have more versions in T than in P (eog-plugins);
In the case of eog-plugins, it looks like all of the long descriptions
are basically the same but have the list of plugins ordered differently.
There are 10 stanzas in the translation file and the package is built on
11 architectures.
I haven't checked the package but my guess would be that the plugin list
in the description is generated during the binary package build and
nothing ensures ordering of that list.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: