Re: [GSoC] Prospective packages importer
Hi Akshita,
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 04:50:15PM +0530, Akshita Jha wrote:
> > Yes, these are the packages collored in red which we have no other base
> > of information than the tasks file and we need to create the full record
> > from here.
> >
>
> I have studied the details of prospective packages in tasks pages. I think
> it is better to add prospective packages which are not in udd yet to the
> already existing "blends_prospectivepackages" table than creating a
> separate table for them. Logically, all these are prospective packages and
> all such packages should be kept in a single table. Does this seem good?
Well, I think both possibilities (use one table for all or two tables)
are technically equal from an SQL point of view. From an UDD point of
view it works usually in a way "truncate the table include data from
scratch". In this aspect a separate table would fit the philosophy a
bit more *if* (and only if) you decide for a separate script for the
import. If you just want to enhance the existing prospective package
importer I fully agree with you.
> And, I'll definitely keep in mind all the points you've mentioned in your
> previous mail [0]
OK.
> To enhance blends_prospectivepackages - the following extra columns need to
> be added:
>
> -> pkg-url
> -> remark
> -> language
> -> note
> -> enhances
> -> X-category
> -> X-Importance
The fields with X- are basically comments for the task file editor so
you can ignore this one. Do we have "Note" fields? Without checking
the docs I think this is undocumented and should be turned to either
"Remark" or X-Note (=be ignored).
> After adding the above column, the information of prospective packages
> already in udd can be enhanced and new prospective packages can be added to
> the same table.
Fine.
BTW, an idea came into my mind that we have even Remarks for *existing*
packages. These would get lost if we only have remarks for the
prospective packages. So we need an extra table
package | remark
Does this sound sensible to you?
> That said, I feel most of these columns will remain empty as the
> information above is not specified for all prospective packages. Will this
> be a problem ?
Definitely no problem - that's natural.
> Do you think all this information will be made available for
> all packages in the long run ?
I do not understand this question.
> Also, how do I go about altering the table ? Should I make changes to
> sql/upgrade.sql ?
Create a separate sql script and I'll merge.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-blends/2015/08/msg00016.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: