[UDD] Rewriting packages and ddtp table code (Was: Description-less packages file)
Hi Stuart,
just to let you know: I realised that with the current ddtp importer a
lot of translations are missing (specifically from non-free and
contrib). The reason is that I formerly downloaded specific
Translation_udd files directly from ddtp.debian.net. Yesterday I
realised that I should use the Translation files which are directly
included in the available mirror on the machine udd is running on. I
will do so in the next couple of days (I hope to have finished this on
Saturday evening - but you never know) but I just wanted to let you know
that the data in ddtp table are incomplete which might be relevant for
your planed work on the packages table.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 11:04:06AM +0000, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> -----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-----
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] jgtkrl$gi6$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] jgtkrl$gi6$1@dough.gmane.org
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: