Re: Description-less packages file
>> You have them only for suites that have this feature enabled. These are
>> all where the following query hits (in projectb):
>> projectb=> select suite_name from suite where include_long_description is false;
>> Your best bet is to wait until after next release, where it will reach
>> stable too.
> That's a bit unfortunate because currently UDD is not featuring *any*
> long_descriptions at all and I guess the problem report on
> debian-devel is connected to this (I have no idea how
> packages.debian.org works but it seems probable to me, that this is
> connected). So with the current state of input files which are
> Packages.gz and Translations* which are in an inconsistent state for
> different releases we are certainly breaking applications using data
> from UDD.
> There are three ways to circumvent this:
> 1. Provide the missing information in the Packages.gz files
> anyway. Joerg, I have no idea how compley to implement
> this might be or what chances to break something might
> 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.
Its a 100% sure that 1 wont happen for Lenny. That one is going away
I would give it a 5% chance to happen for Squeeze. But the actual people
you want to discuss a change like that with are the SRMs. Not me.
And the state is not "inconsistent", its just on a move from old to
(Oh, and no, packages.d.o is NOT using UDD)
Ubuntu: An ancient african word meaning "I can't configure Debian"