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

Re: wrong correspondence between Packages and Translation-en [was: Re: Description-less Packages indices]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Davide Prina wrote:
> >I support the dak change to split off the long descriptions into their
> >own files.
> Packages (P) and Translation-en (T) have some differences, I don't
> understand that there are correct:
> * some packages are in P, but not in T (today I don't found one);

This is not supposed to happen.  I'm not sure if all updates are perfectly
atomic, though.

> * some packages are in T, but not in P (lib32z1);

This is okay and expected.  T is common to all architectures and will
contain some that are on some archs but not other (amd64 but not i386 in
this case).

> * some packages are in T and P but with different versions (libace-6.0.1);
> * some packages have more versions in T than in P (eog-plugins);

A package might be outdated on some archs, in this case, T should have
descriptions for both versions.

> I'm writing a script and I'm expecting a perfect correspondence
> between Packages and Translation-en.

T is a superset of P.

I don't know DAK's internals so can't tell if this is always guaranteed to
be, but I'd say it's a bug if there's anything in P that has no
corresponding description in T.

// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: