On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:31:29 -0700 a.badger@xxxxxxxxx (Toshio Kuratomi) wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 22.09.2008 08:49, Alex Lancaster wrote: > >> Ideally this would be done either as a mandatory part of the > >> original CVS import request (a field could be added, with an > >> opt-out provision if really not appropriate for comps), or added > >> interactively by the maintainer via PackageDB as I suggested in > >> the feature request here: > >> https://fedorahosted.org/packagedb/ticket/78#comment:1 > > > > Hmmmm. How much does the pkgdb know about the binary packages that > > get build from the source packages? Not much afaics, as the pkgdb > > mainly (only?) works with the (source) packages and not the ones > > that get build from it -- but in a proper comps.xml we need to list > > the binary packages, as a user might want to select the packages > > (rpms) foo or bar that both might get build from the package (srpm) > > foobar. > > > >> Having to manually update the comps.xml file for multiple releases > >> is painful, error-prone and probably why most package maintainers > >> ignore it, especially since it is not enforced in package reviews. > > > +1 Yeah, agreed here too. > So here's where I'm at WRT binary packages. > > We have too many apps interested in doing only a subset of the work in > this area. > > There's amber which is going to provide an end user view of > applications (rather than packages) with categories and tags. > There's Fedora collection which probably won't have a permanent data > store of its own. There's PackageDB which oculd be expanded to handle > this (it has tables for binary packages but is unfilled with data). > There's koji which touches every binary package, consumes and > generates comps files. I thought it was mash that consumed and generated the comps files? > There's comps.xml which is the master store > for this information right now. There's repoview which provides a > static interface to binary packages and comps on the gold repo but > not yet updates -- if it is updated to work on updates, that will > require bodhi to write out the files. > > So: > > 1) In which app should the canonical storage for this reside? Perhaps we could get together a meeting of koji, mash, bodhi, pkgdb folks and hash this out? > 2) What interface do we want to put on top of the storage? > 3) What apps will need to pull data from there once we have it? I think 2 and 3 will depend on where the data ends up being stored. > -Toshio kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
