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

Re: UDD and bugs assigned to two or more packages

On 26/09/08 at 12:52 +0200, Frank S. Thomas wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just toyed a bit with the UDD and probably discovered a bug:
> #445875 is assigned to two binary packages that belong to the same source 
> package but UDD lists as 'source' the same as the bug's 'package':
> udd=> select package, source from bugs where id = '445875';
>           package           |           source
> ----------------------------+----------------------------
>  boinc-client,boinc-manager | boinc-client,boinc-manager
> So queries with "where source = 'boinc'" do not include #445875. On the other 
> hand Debbugs knows that this bug belongs to the boinc source package:
> $ bts select source:boinc | grep 445875
> 445875
> So UDD should also know that this bug belongs to boinc and should not list 
> binary packages in the 'source' field, right?

There are two issues:
(1) a known problem with the way UDD identifies the source package for a
binary package, for bugs. You can't just look at the packages table for
that, because lots of bugs are filed against packages that are no longer
in any suite. We just need to copy the way bugreport.cgi does this (help

(2) the way we deal with bugs affecting two (or more) packages.
That's a tricky problem. On one hand, the correct way to solve that
would be to have a separate "affected_packages" table, with (id,
package) columns, and also an "affected_sources" table.

On the other hand, that's makes all queries more complex, because you
have to join this additional table (and it's not going to be a small
table). Currently, there are only 78 unarchived bugs (out of 69982)
which are affected to 2 or more packages (select count(*) from bugs
where package like '%,%').

One possibility would be to keep the package/source columns in bugs, but
add tables with (id, package) and (id, source). That way, people not
interested in this case can join the additional table, while others can
just ignore it. It would only increase a bit the time needed to import
the bugs (about half an hour currently, only I/O bound).

What do people think?
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: