Re: Description-less packages file
On 07/02/12 at 09:11 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> [Joerg in CC in case he might not read debian-qa,
> Lucas in CC because I was somehow expecting some answer from him
> in this thread]
Heh :)
> Hi Stuart,
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 11:26:11PM +0000, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> > > 1. Provide the missing information in the Packages.gz files
> ^ about MD5 sums
> > > anyway. Joerg, I have no idea how complex to implement
> > > this might be or what chances to break something might
> > > exist.
> > > 2. We move English translations from Translation-en.bz2
> > > to the packages table making sure that all existing UDD
> > > applications will work immediately again.
> > > 3. We drop long_description field from packages table now
> > > and *calculate* the md5 sums from long_escription for those
> > > releases where it is missing and keep all long_descriptions
> > > inside the ddtp table.
> >
> > My feeling is that our long term aim should be to have the long description
> > only in the ddtp table. This is a slightly-more-normalised form for the
> > database which will help reduce the size of the tables and, since the long
> > description is unused in most queries to UDD, that will help with
> > performance. It's also a data structure that, in the long term, more closely
> > reflects the data sources being included which has been a general UDD
> > principle over the years.
>
> I perfectly agree here. This excludes option 2 which would have been
> probably most easily to implement but I'm happy that at least one other
> developer does not like this kind of quick workaround
I think that it would be better to do (1) (that is, match what is being
imported), and maybe provide a view that gathers all (english)
descriptions for all releases.
> This somehow brings up a more general requirement: We need better
> documentation what services are using UDD.
Agreed. I've added to my TODO list to work on that, but don't expect
anything happening soon (= if someone has time to work on that, please
do).
Lucas
Reply to: