[csw-maintainers] Proposed changes to the packages database

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Wed Aug 19 21:50:46 CEST 2009

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Philip Brown<phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
> <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm working on some web code with relation to the packages database.
>> I'd like to ask for few minor changes to the database schema. It boils
>> down to creating an autoincremented primary key to tables in which
>> rows are identified by a tuple of two columns. The reason for a change
>> is that the framework I'm using doesn't support composite primary
>> keys.
>> ....
>> Is it okay to apply those changes to the packages database?
> If you want a unique primary key, you should be using the mantis project id
> number, which exists already.

What's the reason? It's a different database, one cannot join the
tables between mantis and the CSW database anyway, can one?

> the internal "package database" is sort of a convenience thing. canonical
> ownership is what mantis says.

Does mantis know about package dependencies?

> Sounds like you and I should have a more in-depth technical discussion.
> Please tell me more about what you are trying to do.

What do you want to know? I'm writing code which is using the existing
database structure - only some tables need small changes to make it

> I'm also wondering what kind of "framework" you are using,that somehow
> limits you about choice of keys.

Django. Requires single-column primary keys. To create a connecting
table, a unique index is used. For instance, a table that was
[pkgname, deppkg] becomes [pkgname, deppkg, id].

A natural-language description is given in the comments. If anyone
wants to read the comments only: http://dpaste.com/82872/

Another idea would be that I can make adapt a copy of the existing
database to show the PoC. I would need a reverse proxy or mod_python


More information about the maintainers mailing list