Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites & repositories

Thanks for the details, everyone. I’ll have a look at updating manpages.d.o to use the ftp-master API and will report back on how that goes. On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:28 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > > pabs, what’s the

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites & repositories

On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:28 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > pabs, what’s the current status on this? Mostly at the 'collecting information' stage; about what hard-coding exists and what requirements there might be etc. > AFAICT, you mentioned you wanted to come up with a spec on the >

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites & repositories

Hi, On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:28 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > pabs, what’s the current status on this? AFAICT, you mentioned you > wanted to come up with a spec on the RepositoryFormat wiki page. I > don’t > see that on the RepositoryFormat wiki page yet. > > Is there any way to help? > >

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites & repositories

Hey, pabs, what’s the current status on this? AFAICT, you mentioned you wanted to come up with a spec on the RepositoryFormat wiki page. I don’t see that on the RepositoryFormat wiki page yet. Is there any way to help? I’m also interested in this issue due to hardcoding in manpages.d.o, which

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

Hi! On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 15:24:58 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Various places in Debian infrastructure (QA especially) hard-code aspects of the Debian archive (suite, code, component, arch names etc). This

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 08:31 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Tagged the bug moreinfo, over the next months I will look at existing hardcoding, consult with service maintainers and try to come up with a spec on the RepositoryFormat page about what data is needed. ftp-masters seem to be open to the idea

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Paul Wise wrote: ftp-masters seem to be open to the idea but want a spec for what data needs to be exported where. I would like to invite service maintainers and maintainers of derivative distros to document what info they hard-code from the Debian archive and their

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

Hi Paul, On Samstag, 13. September 2014, Paul Wise wrote: Various places in Debian infrastructure (QA especially) hard-code aspects of the Debian archive (suite, code, component, arch names etc). This is a problem because after new suites or architectures are added, we have lots of places

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

[Drop the bug since it seems OT there] On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: we have the python-distro-info package which at least holds some of that info. how/where would you see that in your picture? That has the same problem; it hardcodes information about the archive in a

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

2014-09-14 15:08 GMT+02:00 Paul Wise p...@debian.org: [Drop the bug since it seems OT there] On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: we have the python-distro-info package which at least holds some of that info. how/where would you see that in your picture? That has the

Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites repositories

Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Various places in Debian infrastructure (QA especially) hard-code aspects of the Debian archive (suite, code, component, arch names etc). This is a problem because after new suites or architectures are added,