Re: Closing bugs in removed packages, plus .status format change
[Please don't cc me, thanks.]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:46:18AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Adam Heath wrote:
> > But, when control@bugs unarchives a bug, it will *not* reopen it. That should
> > be a separate step. This would need to be documented well, as I would see
> > some people thinking that the bug would be automatically reopened.
OK. I'd considered both behaviours, but it does seem simplest to have
'unarchive' be a primitive operation.
> > Btw, I'm working on changing the .status format. There will be a new file,
> > .db, that will be formated like a dpkg control file. My plan is to work on
> > some converter code offline, modify the existing .status reader, modify the
> > existing debbugs code to .....
> > NOT USE GLOBALS FOR BUG DATA,
> Note, that I have changed the order of the fields, to make parsing the files
> by humans a tad easier, but the code itself won't care, when reading in the
Yeah, that's cool, it will make extensions *much* easier.
> Since both file sizes are under a cluster/sector/block in length, there won't
> be any additional space requirements, after the conversion is finalized.
> However, during the transition, the number of additional inodes will increase
> by 159000(or so), which is well under master's limits.
Or you could add the new code but include a temporary fallback to the
old code, convert one file at a time deleting the old one, then delete
the temporary fallback. *shrug* As you say, master can handle the
> Question: Should I store the bug# in the .db file?
Colin Watson [email@example.com]