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

Re: Input on package thermometer (Was ... long ago: package thermometer improvements)


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:37:22AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:50:55PM +0200, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> > > It means that all packages you regard as relevant for GIS are injected
> > > into the appropriate task.  The "Links" section on the left contains a
> > > link to the Debian GIS tasks page you most probably want to visit if you
> > > have no idea what tasks might mean.
> > 
> > Sorry, I'm not getting your point: e.g. QGIS is marked as Up to date, whereas its
> > version in deb is considerably older than the latest released.
> Well, that's by design of the packages thermometer as it used to be.  If
> you look at [1] which I used as model it reflects the same because it
> just compares between Debian stable and Debian unstable and sop it is
> rather faking a feature that upnstable is behind upstream than an issue.
> However, I *perfectly* agree with you that this is not a good idea and
> the good news is that with the current technique we can easily query for
> upstream version and compare against this.  If nobody insists I will
> update the thermometer with an 'upstream' column and I would like you to
> propose a color / naming sheme how to mark a row if Debian is behind
> upstream.  I even might imagine just to mark the field with the upstream
> version in read if it is newer than unstable.

I have updated the thermometer code to also reflect upstream status.
However, this only works for packages with working watch file which does
not seem to be the case specifically for qgis where version 1.5.0 is
reported as latest upstream version.  Please check BTW and file an
according bug report (preferably with patch) if you want to help making
this situation better.

> > > Moreover, if you want me to inject an additional package you need to
> > > specify to what task.  BTW, when thinking about this I might add an
> > > additional column in the end of the table mentioning the task(s) a
> > > package is part of.  What do you think?
> > 
> > +1
> > thanks.
> OK.  I'll try to implement two new columns: upstream + tasks.  I hope to
> get it read in about 2-3 days.

Well, it seemed sufficiently easy so it just took a couple of hours.
Admittedly I had done the preparation for most things in advance but was
to much struck be reimplementing the existing state than by adding the
new features.  Enjoy


and feel free to criticise my design decision to use a different coloring
scheme for upstream versions.

Kind regards



Reply to: