Hey, On 24/03/14 17:42, Christophe Siraut wrote: > Hi, > > Lucas Nussbaum écrivait: >>> Yes, that is an interesting and most likely doable idea. It would >>> probably require some back end changes (as we should not reveal the list >>> of installed packages by querying QA pages directly). Maybe it's not on >>> the top of the TODO list, but I'll give it a though (and ask Lucas if it >>> is doable from his point of view). >> >> Another option is to add the reasons to the JSON. That would only >> require work on the UDD side. I'm not sure of how hard it is to do, you >> might want to ask Ivo De Decker about it (ivodd@d.o). > > As there can be several reasons for a package being removed, it might be > wise to provide a single link in how-can-i-help to excuses.php [1] and > keep one line items. > > Otherwise that script parses an html page [2] generated by britney, I > don't think the same data is available in UDD but for what is relevant > here one might just filter out the bugs table on the severity level, and > ignore the dependency problems which are currently out of scope. > > Cheers, > Christophe > > 1. http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=apt-dpkg-ref > 2. http://release.debian.org/britney/update_excuses.html
At the moment, we are providing a link to a package qa page [1] which already contains excuses section (on that page there is a link to complete excuses page too). I'd rather keep one liners as a default, so I was thinking about adding a non-default option to increase the verbosity. This way, only interested parties will get excuses in how-can-i-help output. But first, I'll check if getting excuses from UDD is doable :) Thanks for your help :) Regards, T. [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/<package>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
