Bug#869738: Kill off db2html and html-control
Thanks for summarizing the possibilities!
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> Open points (also RFC!):
>
> - db/ix/full.html
> o list of all non-archived bugs
> o no alternative (needs implementation)
I guess pkgreport could be extended to do this; it's not a particularly
useful feature unless the number of bugs is very small, though. [It's
totally useless for Debian.]
> - db/ix/maintainers.html
> o list of maintainers (broken, does not consider Maintainers.override)
> o RewriteRule ^/db/ix/maintainers\.html /cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=maint
> [L,R]
> - db/ix/packages.html
> o list of packages with non-archived bugs
> o RewriteRule ^/db/ix/packages\.html /cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=pkg [L,R]
> - db/ix/pseudopackages.html
> o list of pseudo-packages for Package: line
> o no alternative (do we actually need a replacement? is empty on my instance)
Probably a replacement would be good; in Debian it's
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages
> - db/ix/psummary.html
> o list of non-archived bugs in summarized tabular fashion; sorted by pkgname
> o no alternative (probably don't need this, contains the same information as
> the full bugs list)
> - db/ix/summary.html
> o list of non-archived bugs in summarized tabular fashion; sorted by ID and
> time; multiple tables - one per month of age
> o no alternative (THIS can actually be helpful, because it groups bugs in
> 1-month-increments based upon their age - should have an alternative!)
This can be done in pkgreport.cgi eventually.
> - db/ju/junk.html
> o list of junk messages not associated with a bug report
> o ? no alternative (not needed? empty for me - part of SpamAssassin
> integration?)
Yeah, this is totally useless.
> - db/ma/lMAINTAINERNAME.html
> o list of non-archived bugs for packages owned by MAINTAINERNAME (broken,
> does not consider Maintainers.override)
> o RewriteRule ^/db/ma/l(\w+)\.html /cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=$1 [L,R]
> o CAVEAT: rule needs definitely more care, also, on my instance (since
> Maintainers.override is not taken into account), only a file for "(unknown)"
> exists which spells out "l-28_unknown-29_.html". Not sure what the actual value
> would be for other maintainer addresses, but it would probably have special
> characters replaced with -charcodeinhex_ (like "@" -> -40_) so we have to be
> VERY careful on that one. I'd rather drop this completely since it's somewhat
> broken.
I think we can sort of handle it with a rewrite rule, and hope for the best.
> - db/pa/lPACKAGENAME.html
> o list of bugs affecting or assigned to PACKAGENAME
> o RewriteRule ^/db/ma/l([\w+.-]+)\.html
> /cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=$1 [L,R]
> o CAVEAT: rule needs more love - what are acceptable characters in package
> names? Debian only allows [a-z0-9.+-], but other package management systems have
> different rules - for instance also allowing upper-case characters. What other
> special characters may be allowed, like ~, #, $ etc.?
Yeah; not sure. I think we can do the best job possible, and then let
people suggest patches for it.
I'll work up an initial stab with the suggested rewrite rules in the
suggested apache configuration, and then we can modify it as necessary.
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
There is no form of lead-poisoning which more rapidly and thoroughly
pervades the blood and bones and marrow than that which reaches the
young author through mental contact with type metal.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes (Tilton 1947 p67)
Reply to: