On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 03:24:58PM +0800, 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 that need to be updated. Most of them can be > fixed (help needed), however Debian does not provide information about > which repositories are available where, which suites are provided by > them, nor any information about the relative order of those suites, nor > any information about which suites are archived.
AOL! As present and past maintainer of some services in the large galaxy of Debian (QA) services, the problem you highlight here is very significant. I'd love to see the solution you propose implemented. Thanks for documenting this need. > Generated on a per-repository basis so that consumers get the data > they are interested in. Here I mean one for ftp.d.o/debian and one for > each of the archive.d.o/* repositories. I'm confused about this. We have several additional archives ATM, for instance security and lts. Does the above mean that the maintainer of an infrastructure piece that spans multiple archives will have to separately retrieve the metadata from each of them? There is certainly value in keeping the metadata close to the corresponding data, but Debian as a project should IMHO also centralize somewhere all information about all its official archives. Are you ruling out a scheme that would provide such a single source of information? > Be machine-readable by a variety of languages (including shell and > more capable languages), deb822 format seems best here. ACK. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
