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

Re: Note about Comparison of Packages page

*Alex Shnitman wrote:
> Hi
> On the Comparison of Packages in hamm(2.0) and slink(2.1) page on
> www.debian.org, there's a list of packages that are in hamm but not in
> slink. In this list each package is a link to its entry in the
> Packages web database, but there's *no* such package in slink, so the
> link is broken! Perhaps you should change the link to point to the
> hamm Packages database, if it's still there at all.
	You are correct.  When the scripts were written, slink was unstable
and hamm was stable.  Now slink is stable and the package description pages
for hamm have disappeared. I don't know what to do about it.  If I could get
the scripts that generate these pages, maybe I could generate them for hamm.
But they seem to rely on a complete source and binary tree. Perhaps they can
be generated once for hamm (and bo?) . I don't even know if they are
currently generated dynamically or not.
	Adam, the file :  distcomp/conf_files/conf.hamm.slink  looks like

require 'conf.all.pre';
# name and number of new dist.
$nname = "slink";
$nnum = "2.1";
# name and number of old dist
$oname = "hamm";
$onum = "2.0";

# If either of these are unset, then the link will not be made.
# This is the path for the newer release (not necc unstable)
$debian_org_base_unst = $debian_org_base . "unstable/";
# This is the path for the older release (not necc, the current stable one)
$debian_org_base_st = $debian_org_base . "stable/";

require 'conf.all.post';
 (  um.. "necc" is a bad abreviation for "necessary")
You see the lines that determine where to find the package descriptions.
Currently, we need
$debian_org_base_unst = $debian_org_base . "stable/"; 
and leave $debian_org_base_st undefined.

This will look under "stable" for slink descriptions and will not make a
link for hamm descriptions.


John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu>,  lapeyre@debian.org
Tucson,AZ     http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre

Reply to: