On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 at 16:00:50, Dave Reisner wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 03:52:09PM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > [...] > > That sounds like an even better idea. So we're making the package pages > > look like the archweb package pages, with PKGBUILD and tarball links. > > But do we include comments etc. from the pkgbase there as well? Or > > rather have the actions and comments on the pkgbase pages only? > > If comments, etc. will be shared amongst all output packages, then it > makes sense, to me, to also load them on the pkgbase page. > > > And when searching, we only return package pages? > > Agreed.
So the plan is: * Create a "PackageBases" table with a "Name" column and transfer the following fields from the "Packages" table: - CategoryID (?) - NumVotes - OutOfDateTS - SubmittedTS - ModifiedTS - SubmitterUID - MaintainerUID * Change the foreign key references in PackageVotes, PackageComments and CommentNotify. * Write a migration script that converts the tables accordingly. We probably want to use the package name as pkgbase name for existing packages. * Adjust the package submission script: Create pkgbase and packages on submission (check all packages for conflicts with existing ones, filter all packages using the blacklist, etc.!) * Redesign the UI: Add pkgbase pages that contain links to all packages belonging to the pkgbase and also provide package actions and comments/votes (do we want to add these to non-split packages as well?) The package pages contain links to the corresponding pkgbase pages as well. * Adjust the RPC interface and add missing features/information. Did I miss anything?
