On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:32:36PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> My idea was primarily not about sorting package versions but rather to
> list releases in a determined sequence. Listing "experimental" in the
> end sounded reasonable to me. I admit that the versions of packages
> inside experimental do not necessarily follow this ordering.
>
> My application is the "Versions and Archs" button on the tasks pages
> and I'm just seeking a way to make sure that we do not get something
> like
I fully understand your use case, in fact it is the same the PTS has for
sorting the lines of the various releases in all package pages. Still, I
wanted to point out that that order is somehow arbitrary, for non
released suites (which you seem to agree upon).
> So I try to reiterate
>
> CREATE TABLE releases (
> release text, /* keep name column as in other tables */
> releasedate date,
> sort int,
> PRIMARY KEY (releasename)
> );
I'm OK with this.
As an alternative suggestion that just occurred to me, we can actually
define a new datatype for releases (as we did for package versions)
which is an enumeration sorted as we please. That way "<" ordering would
work automagically. I'm not sure it will be worth, though.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature