Re: Description-less packages file
[Trying to reach SRM via this list. To get the history of this thread
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:44:49PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> You have them only for suites that have this feature enabled. These are
> >> all where the following query hits (in projectb):
> >> projectb=> select suite_name from suite where include_long_description is false;
> >> suite_name
> >> --------------------------
> >> unstable
> >> proposed-updates
> >> testing-proposed-updates
> >> experimental
> >> testing
> >> Your best bet is to wait until after next release, where it will reach
> >> stable too.
> > That's a bit unfortunate because currently UDD is not featuring *any*
> > long_descriptions at all and I guess the problem report on
> > debian-devel is connected to this (I have no idea how
> > packages.debian.org works but it seems probable to me, that this is
> > connected). So with the current state of input files which are
> > Packages.gz and Translations* which are in an inconsistent state for
> > different releases we are certainly breaking applications using data
> > from UDD.
> > There are three ways to circumvent this:
> > 1. Provide the missing information in the Packages.gz files
> > anyway. Joerg, I have no idea how compley to implement
> > this might be or what chances to break something might
> > exist.
> > 2. We move English translations from Translation-en.bz2
> > to the packages table making sure that all existing UDD
> > applications will work immediately again.
> > 3. We drop long_description field from packages table now
> > and *calculate* the md5 sums from long_escription for those
> > releases where it is missing and keep all long_descriptions
> > inside the ddtp table.
> Its a 100% sure that 1 wont happen for Lenny. That one is going away
> pretty soon.
> I would give it a 5% chance to happen for Squeeze. But the actual people
> you want to discuss a change like that with are the SRMs. Not me.
Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether
there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages
files from Squeeze (and Wheezy).
> And the state is not "inconsistent", its just on a move from old to
I do not see any need to debate the wording - I hope it somehow becomes
clear that we in some way need to provide the relevant data in a
consistent way inside UDD.
> (Oh, and no, packages.d.o is NOT using UDD)
Thanks for the clarification.
> Ubuntu: An ancient african word meaning "I can't configure Debian"