[csw-maintainers] Final feedback for putting in GAR/repository info into our mysql db

[Philip Brown]

Sorry for loong quote: wanted to preserve context for others.
This was from subject line previously of:

"http://www.opencsw.org/packages/<pkg>: Add GAR build recipe URL to
package page?"


On 11/18/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Hi Phil,

*wave*


> Am 17.11.2010 um 18:49 schrieb Philip Brown:
>
>>
>> I guess it depends what your goals are. There would seem to be two,
>> mutually conflicting goals: [for db registration of OPENCSW_REPOSITORY]
>>
>> 1. Make it so packages already registered, do not have to be
>> REregistered with new src locations, if we reorganize SVN
>> (assumption: if we reorganize, we will do a clean, transparent
>> migration of EVERYTHING, rather than onsey-twosy migrate)

[ http://blahblah/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/ruby/trunk@11004
becomes pkg/ruby/trunk at 11004, or even just ruby/trunk at 11004, in db ]

>>
>> 2. Make it so packages keep the old legacy pathnames. So even if we
>> reorganize, old packages keep pointing to old locations.

[ http://blahblah/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/ruby/trunk@11004
becomes gar/csw/mgar/pkg/ruby/trunk at 11004 in db]



>>
>> I THINK Dago is aiming for #2.  Whereas it seems to me that #1 is
>> better.
>
> Correct. The link should go to the specific revision in the repository
> the
> package was built from. The reasoning is that releasable packages
> should be build by an automatic build system in the future triggered
> by copying trunk to a specific directory for releasable packages
> which path will then go into the package. The path will be
> different than the one leading to the most current build recipep
>
> For the most up to date link the field can just
> be freely editable, inference from a package field may or may not be
> correct. It should be set manually by the package maintainer and may
> be preset to trunk.


Okay. Well, I dont feel strongly that there is one particular "right"
answer; I think its mostly just "what do people want".
Putting this out there, with a clean subject line so people previously
ignoring it, might pay attention now :)
If there's no other feedback in support of the shorter method, then I
guess I'll start working on implementing the longer method come monday
(nov 22nd)