Re: "Unpackaged software" database (Re: Suggestion about wnpp)
On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 03:36:31AM -0300, Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> A postgresql-based package database could be cool. Perhaps an
> ldap-based one would be better because ldap is based on rfc-822
> style headers (like we have in "Packages" files), so the
> "Description:" field (possibly others) from this database can be
> ripped straight from the database to .../debian/control (and
> from there to the new package).
>
> A web interface is almost mandatory; would be better if it could
> look like we have in http://www.debian.org/Packages/ (perhaps
> even make http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages.html have a new
> search option, along with:
> Version: ( ) unstable (*) stable ( ) frozen ( ) all versions
> add ( ) not packaged
>
Jason (culus) and benc are working on a developer database using ldap.
It has already been proposed to add a package database to this.
Note that managing the package database efficiently will probably
involve it somehow being connected to the dinstall run. With
over 2500 packages in potato, up to 3 dists ({un}stable and frozen)
and a growing number of archs it isn't a good idea to have random
programs poking through the archive every day.
As soon as a package database is working, a web interface will be
developed. That does not mean we will instantly convert to using it
exclusively. We need to guarantee that those who don't have a good
link to north america can still access this. Distributing the ldap
database is almost trivial (ldap is designed to be easily distributed).
The main problem is how to make it easy for users to retrieve the pages
from a site (topologically) close to them. A secondary problem is
relying on complex things to be set up on mirrors we don't control.
Anyone who thinks the second problem is trivial is welcome to
become a webmaster and learn the true meaning of frustration.
Jay Treacy
Reply to: