Re: Gathering package upstream meta-data in the UDD. (was: Re: more formally indicating the registration URL)
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:05:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> For the moment, one has to access an arbitrary key, but later the best would be
> to have a special key, for instance YAML-UPDATE, that would force the update.
Or rather "upstream-metadata update". You certainly would not like to update
the YAML standard. ;-)
> If it is possible to have a per-file commit hook, then each time a
> upstream-metadata.yaml is modified, the debian.net site can updated.
As I said: I'm afraid it is hard to ensure that *every* potential VCS has
a properly configured commit hook. I'm no VCS expert but it sounds hard
to maintain.
> Next step is to feed the UDD. For the moment, the site produces one table per
> keyword. The rationale is that for many keywords, the data will be too sparse
> to be interesting for the UDD. My current idea is to generate the tables for a
> limited set of curated keywords, assemble them (with the unix join command?),
> and give leave this in a public place that the UDD can read.
As I said in my previous mail it is perfectly OK if there is a way to fetch
the original upstream-metadata.yaml files in some reasonable way. Reading
these is probably much easier than any aggregated format.
> For the UDD import, what would be the most suitable among the two propositions
> of Andreas?
Well, I have no idea - it was a question and I gave the pros and cons for both
variants in my mail.
> > CREATE TABLE upstream-metadata (
> > package text,
> > key1 text,
> > key2 text,
> > ...
> > keyN text,
> > PRIMARY KEY package
> > );
>
> > CREATE TABLE upstream-metadata (
> > package text,
> > key text,
> > value text,
> > PRIMARY KEY (package,key)
> > );
>
> Since the addition of more meta-data to our source packages is a frequent issue
> raised on debian-devel, I think that there is a general interst for
> standardising ???field??? names, whichever the technical solution that will be
> adopted.
So if we have a really standardised set of keywords probably the first method
sounds apropriate for the problem.
> I will try to find a proper place on wiki.debian.org to let pepole document
> the fields they create, and if necessary discuss them.
Sounds good
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: