On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 07:41:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 1) the links about the relevant pages can and should be put, what do you
> > think of a link for each package to its "explained excuses" page?
> > Any other per-package link which can be useful?
> What about a link to the PTS, so you get indirect access to everything
> there ?
It's already there: try clicking on package names.
> > 2) considering other architectures is still useful, for example ATM if
> > someone uploads to powerpc and the rebuild breaks on i386 we will be
> > fooled to consider the package as needing work, while it's not the
> > case. I can implement a check which looks in all architectures and
> > only takes into the account the more up to date. Once I had to
> > implement it adding a warning like "hey, the package is not in sync
> > on ..." would be easy to add
> Maybe with a different colour code ?
The code which consider multiple architecture actually is already there:
it's enough to feed more than one arch Packages into the page generation
script. Since yesterday the scripts consider both amd64 and i386. I'm
having trouble with powerpc because sometimes the Packages are sometimes
not available (for example for experimental).
The code for detecting where a package is missing is not yet there
though, but what is implemented is a link to the excuses page if a
package is available in unstable and not in testing. It should be
enough, I think.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature