[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Description-less packages file



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Andreas,

> Status update:  Tests on blends.debian.net have shown that we also need
> distribution column in descriptions table to handle backports-squeeze
> properly (otherwise the last one imported of squeeze and
> backports-squeeze would win and only those descriptions are injected -
> at least with the current import procedure).

I think your changes are necessary so that the derivatives_descriptions 
table, which we are currently not populating, can eventually be properly 
populated, and there is some benefit in having the same schema for each of 
the *_descriptions tables even if the debian_descriptions table will always 
have "debian" in that column.

That said, I don't believe this change will actually help the problem you 
are seeking to address: "distribution" should be uniformly "debian" in the 
descriptions generated by the packages gatherer for all Packages files 
coming from Debian. Descriptions imported by the ddtp gatherer itself will 
also always have "debian" at this stage.

The data from squeeze vs squeeze-backports should be differentiated in the 
"release" column, not in the distribution column. Looking at config-
org.yaml, I suspect that the real problem is that the "release" key for 
squeeze-backports is incorrectly set:

debian-backports-squeeze:
  [...]
  release: squeeze

if set to "squeeze-backports" then the release column will instead 
distinguish the translations from one-another in the (package, release, 
component) tuple. This is probably a simple copy+paste error from the 
squeeze release; fixing this should also fix the translation clobbering 
problem.

cheers
Stuart

- -- 
Stuart Prescott                 www.nanoNANOnano.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk9KzE8ACgkQn+i4zXHF0ahCbgCcCEjhwPAgxoJdxwqsCl5QM3De
yfsAn2MUCuswHeRcBGU8qwj+ecXgUr0P
=nmLK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: