2009/9/17 Loui Chang <louipc....@gmail.com>:
> On Mon 14 Sep 2009 22:46 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
>> The following patch adds the Orphan field to the aurjson output. For
>> username we would need to hit the database once more (maybe, have to
>> think more SQL for that), but the Orphan-ness is quite straightforward
>> to evaluate. So let's just do that first.
>>
>> This patch, however, might clash with one patch I sent in a few days
>> ago [1], since that one hasn't been applied to the repo, yet. Anyway,
>> neither of those are hard to see where they should go...
>>
>> Any comments?
>
>> @@ -139,6 +140,8 @@ class AurJSON {
>> if ( $result && (mysql_num_rows($result) > 0) ) {
>> $row = mysql_fetch_assoc($result);
>> mysql_free_result($result);
>> + $row['Orphan'] = ($row['MaintainerUID'] == "0" ? "1" : "0");
>> + unset($row['MaintainerUID']);
>
> Just leaving MaintainerUID as-is here should be good enough I think.
> I'll push that if you want to resubmit. Thanks.
>
>
The reason I have the "Orphan" and not the "MaintainerUID", because
from the website it is not possible to connect the MaintainerUID and
the username, and I'm not aware of any way one can search for the
username or packages using MaintainerUID. That makes this number
pretty meaningless except for AUR internal usage.
Also, having an "Orphan" value is completely self-explanatory (as are
the OutOfDate and all other fields...) - one can just look at the json
output for the very first time in their life and see what means what.
The "If MaintainerUID is 0 then it is an orphan package, if whatever
>0 then someone maintains it" is a needed explanation beyond the
aurjson output.
If you want to change something, then remove the removal of the
MaintainerUID (for some usage I might not thing of right now). The
"orphan" field should stay in my opinion.
Of course this is ultimately your call, these are just some thoughts....
Cheers,
Greg
