The attached patch adds the short description under the source package
name. The current PTS only uses the short description if there is a
binary package that has the same name as the source package. If not,
it just displays "Source package" I have decided to fall back to the
short description for
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> This is done in distro_tracker/core/views.py Let me know if there is a
> better place. I know that views.py can become a bit of a dumping
> ground, but I didn't see anywhere that made more sense.
It should probably be a method of PackageNa
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
>> This is done in distro_tracker/core/views.py Let me know if there is a
>> better place. I know that views.py can become a bit of a dumping
>> ground, but I didn't see anywhere t
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> > It should probably be a method of PackageName so that we get the short
> > description for free in any other context... for example in the mail
> > bot when we confirm the subscription or something like that.
>
> Makes sense. I think I'v
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
>> > It should probably be a method of PackageName so that we get the short
>> > description for free in any other context... for example in the mail
>> > bot when we confirm the subscript
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 13:18 -0700, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> The attached patch adds the short description under the source package
> name. The current PTS only uses the short description if there is a
> binary package that has the same name as the source package. If not,
> it just displays
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I think this fall back should not be used, except for packages that
> build a single binary. It results in nonsense like:
The heuristics used by the old PTS are probably better. A summary:
When only one binary package, use the description
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > I think this fall back should not be used, except for packages that
> > build a single binary. It results in nonsense like:
>
> The heuristics used by the old PTS are probably better. A summary:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> > I think this fall back should not be used, except for packages that
>> > build a single binary. It results in nonsense like:
>>
>> The h
[ quoted text edit to add references ]
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:39:13PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 1) When only one binary package, use the description from it.
>
> 2) When more than one binary package but one has the same name as the
> source package, use the description from that.
>
> 3) Othe
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Uhm, interesting, I always thought the heuristic was slightly
> difference.
It was always that way FYI.
> Is there an argument for not replacing point (3) above with:
>
> (3*) Otherwise, use the description of the first binary in
>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Is there an argument for not replacing point (3) above with:
> >
> > (3*) Otherwise, use the description of the first binary in
> > debian/control order
> >
> > My gut feeling is that (2) is enough to counter most of the misleading
> > results that (3*)
12 matches
Mail list logo
