Sebastian Pipping wrote:
I start to understand the real benefits of moving a larger
part of the maintenance down to the distro level as you proposed.
Okay, let's add support for CPEs at distro package level
and sync up and down with the central packagemap database.
Please contact me for
Petteri Räty wrote:
You need to come up with the needed DTD changes for metadata.xml. Last
time the schema was changed it was done with a GLEP so writing one seems
prudent here too especially if we are going to make the value mandatory
after it was been added to all existing packages. Also
Paul Wise wrote:
The scripts were in my mail and the files are on every Debian mirror:
wget -O -
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/Packages | grep
-h ^Homepage | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -r | head -n 10
wget -O -
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Neither of the gits gentoo has seems very split,
I was referring to git in Debian here:
Package: git-core
Binary: git-core, git-doc, git-arch, git-cvs, git-svn,
git-email, git-daemon-run, git-gui, gitk, gitweb
texlive with (http://www.tug.org/texlive/)
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
I'd like to determine the subset of URLs that appear
exactly once in both gentoo and debian source packages.
Mappable homepages in Debian: 6222
Mappable homepages in Gentoo: 9582
Shared (without normalization): 1183
With normalization for
SourceForge,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
I start to understand the real benefits of moving a larger
part of the maintenance down to the distro level as you proposed.
Okay, let's add support for CPEs at
Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 02:09 +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
It could be interesting how much the list of homepages
in say Debian packages and Gentoo packages overlap.
Debian sid amd64 binary packages:
$ grep -h ^Homepage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
I start to understand the real benefits of moving a larger
part of the maintenance down to the distro level as you proposed.
Okay, let's add support for CPEs at distro package level
and sync up and down with the central
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
I start to understand the real benefits of moving a larger
part of the maintenance down to the distro level as you proposed.
Okay, let's add support for CPEs at distro package level
and sync up and down with the central packagemap
I start to understand the real benefits of moving a larger
part of the maintenance down to the distro level as you proposed.
Okay, let's add support for CPEs at distro package level
and sync up and down with the central packagemap database.
Please contact me for collaboration on sync scripts
and
On Saturday 13 June 2009, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
One of the stronger points for collaborating at the source is that
poeple who are not Gentoo devs (yet) and therefore have no write
access to the Gentoo tree can still extend and fix the Gentoo
packagemap entries. Doing it downstream would
Robert Buchholz wrote:
On Saturday 13 June 2009, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
One of the stronger points for collaborating at the source is that
poeple who are not Gentoo devs (yet) and therefore have no write
access to the Gentoo tree can still extend and fix the Gentoo
packagemap entries.
On Monday 15 June 2009, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
However there are a few more things to take into account,
please have a look at my reply to Paul:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/popcon-developers/2009-June/
001759.html
Sorry for not CC'ing you, I should have though of that.
Robert Buchholz wrote:
The consumers of the PackageMap will always only use the central
database.
I'm not sure about that. I rather assume it will happen.
Especially use ignoring the substitution map.
I am convinced the project will be more viable if people can choose
their level of
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Can I have a few more voices on this?: Would you clearly feel more
comfortable and motivated to contribute to PackageMap if it works
at your distro's source package?
You are somewhat missing the point. My point is that most developers
probably don't want to care
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
To count into the same bucket we use global identifiers for the
products that fall out of a package. Gentoo package dev-util/git
can produce product cpe://a:git:git, Debian's git-core can, too.
That string before is a CPE
Petteri Räty wrote:
I mean making metadata.xml the authoritative source for mapping CPE to
Gentoo packages. I don't want to see the situation when adding new
packages to the tree would need some mapping being done in an external
web service.
Well, it's a nothing more than git commit and push
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
I mean making metadata.xml the authoritative source for mapping CPE to
Gentoo packages. I don't want to see the situation when adding new
packages to the tree would need some mapping being done in an external
web service.
Well, it's a nothing
Petteri Räty wrote:
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
To count into the same bucket we use global identifiers for the
products that fall out of a package. Gentoo package dev-util/git
can produce product cpe://a:git:git, Debian's git-core can, too.
That string before is a CPE URI [1], a concept close
19 matches
Mail list logo
