DUCK Status update, RFC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Pabs, hi qa team.
Current development instance is here: (showing data from partials runs,
so expect strange results, but the leftmost column is real),
http://zidpc9027.tugraz.at/duck/index.php
I added the checks for SVN repos, which now leads to ~2700 binary
packages with issues.
SVN checks are done via svn info, which seems to work quite well,
e.g. http://zidpc9027.tugraz.at/duck/index.php?searchstring=pabs
To link to a specific package(from PTS), you may now use
the parameter package=<packagename> like this:
http://zidpc9027.tugraz.at/duck/index.php?package=xtermset
I am currently thinking about a way to check (amongst other vcs systems)
git repos, without cloning the full repo - maybe just fetch some file
from inside the repo? Someone has some idea how this might be done?
Basically bandwith is no issue, but it seems a bit overkill to me, to
_really_ check out git repos.
And yes, i know i still have to work in the design.
This is still work in development, so please be kind ;-) and please give
me feedback.
Simon
Am 12/30/12 08:29, schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 07:41 +0100, Simon Kainz wrote:
>
>> just to let you know i am working on it:
>>
>> http://zidpc9027.tugraz.at/duck/index.php?format=plain
>>
>> now shows the list in plaintext format which is the way we discussed it
>> some time ago. Please remember, this is development only.
>
> Excellent, please let me know when it is deployed.
>
>> Concerning VCS-* fields: Currently you show the "The upstream URL(s)
>> for this package had some issues for the past 5 days. " string on the
>> PTS. When I am now starting to add the VCS-* statii, do you think it's
>> better to keep them separate, allowing another line like "VCS had some
>> issues in the past .. days?"
>
> Hmm. Vcs-Browser fields are not for the upstream VCS, but the Debian
> one. So I should remove "upstream" from that message. I think we should
> just have one message for all URLs, makes it easier to have in the PTS.
>
>> Or should I just throw all data together and return just one good/bad
>> state? But i think we should prefer the former way, as I will also try
>> to incorporate Upstream metadata, so the whole thing might get too flaky
>> for sane results.
>
> I prefer one good/bad status for all the URLs to keep the PTS simple. If
> you want to also add more reports containing status for each URL, that
> might be useful for things like UDD.
>
> I think we should discuss DUCK on the debian-qa list from now on,
> instead of in private mail. Is that OK for you? Are you subscribed?
>
> You might want to consider not using PHP any more:
>
> http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlDkSQAACgkQEtt57sR2O6XeXQCglzy3DMgQRQTQI/JbYAc3BRYo
n/IAn0MM8S9LrmYQUWFxjuUzn3PLrNgC
=jRUW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: