[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Note about Comparison of Packages page



*Alex Shnitman wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On the Comparison of Packages in hamm(2.0) and slink(2.1) page on
> www.debian.org, there's a list of packages that are in hamm but not in
> slink. In this list each package is a link to its entry in the
> Packages web database, but there's *no* such package in slink, so the
> link is broken! Perhaps you should change the link to point to the
> hamm Packages database, if it's still there at all.
> 
	You are correct.  When the scripts were written, slink was unstable
and hamm was stable.  Now slink is stable and the package description pages
for hamm have disappeared. I don't know what to do about it.  If I could get
the scripts that generate these pages, maybe I could generate them for hamm.
But they seem to rely on a complete source and binary tree. Perhaps they can
be generated once for hamm (and bo?) . I don't even know if they are
currently generated dynamically or not.
	Adam, the file :  distcomp/conf_files/conf.hamm.slink  looks like
this:

---
require 'conf.all.pre';
# name and number of new dist.
$nname = "slink";
$nnum = "2.1";
# name and number of old dist
$oname = "hamm";
$onum = "2.0";

# If either of these are unset, then the link will not be made.
# This is the path for the newer release (not necc unstable)
$debian_org_base_unst = $debian_org_base . "unstable/";
# This is the path for the older release (not necc, the current stable one)
$debian_org_base_st = $debian_org_base . "stable/";

require 'conf.all.post';
---
 (  um.. "necc" is a bad abreviation for "necessary")
You see the lines that determine where to find the package descriptions.
Currently, we need
$debian_org_base_unst = $debian_org_base . "stable/"; 
and leave $debian_org_base_st undefined.

This will look under "stable" for slink descriptions and will not make a
link for hamm descriptions.

John


-- 
John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu>,  lapeyre@debian.org
Tucson,AZ     http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre


Reply to: