Re: Description-less packages file
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 11:04:06AM +0000, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> 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.
Well, that's right.
> 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.
ACK. I even was wondering whether the view should carry the old table
name simply pretending to be the old table and thus let current
applications keep on working without knowing them. The drawback would
be to be not able to keep the simple and generic table name which would
be a shame. So I'm undecided what to do - just droping this idea
somewhere.
> 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.
Good question. From an analogon perspective it seems logical to use
ubuntu_ddtp + derivatives_ddtp (I mean separate tables). If it is about
the actual naming of the ddtp table we might also consider from scratch
because a large amount of payload is actually not from DDTP project now
any more. I'm fine to rename ddtp table into descriptions and then use
ubuntu_descriptions + derivatives_descriptions (or something similar).
> * 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.
At some point in time somebody will complain and thus we should at least
try to have an opinion about the solution which will most probably be
easy to implement instead of ignoring it completely.
It would be really cool if you could implement this.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: