Re: Description-less packages file
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear Andreas,
> Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refusing an
> additional field in the Packages files? It is hard to cope with "it is
> unlikely". A yes or no would be more helpful to find a reasonable
> decision for the UDD importer.
I think it's sufficiently easy to implement this in the gatherer that we
should just do it there and that way we don't run the risk of breaking
anything else. Moreover, even if we were to get dak to export this data for
UDD's benefit, any other derivatives or 3rd party repos that were imported
into a UDD instance would have this problem.
So, dropping the long_description field from packages and instead pushing
that data into ddtp (if it's not there already) is the first step in this.
UDD would then have a consistent representation of the data for Debian
packages from all releases; I've started playing with how to do this
already. Lucas' suggestion of a view to make retrieving the long_description
easy is a good one.
The remaining question is what we should do the long descriptions from
ubuntu_packages and derivatives_packages. Currently, those tables are
missing the long_descriptions for releases where Description-md5 is being
used. We can either:
* push them into the ddtp table too (with appropriate an "release" value,
since there's no "distribution" column in ddtp)
* make additional tables for ubuntu_ddtp (ubuntu_descriptions?),
derivatives_ddtp.
* ignore the problem for the time being since the long descriptions have
been missing from the ubuntu_packages table for a few months now and no-one
has complained.
Thoughts?
cheers
Stuart
- --
Stuart Prescott www.nanoNANOnano.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk8yVqYACgkQn+i4zXHF0ajYqgCgoDwU5J0GxfXxzL28YqxkXXEQ
zMYAoKuzE85Z8W5+AqvhYhriOVVwsTYp
=Ew+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: