On 2/27/19 10:09 AM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: To PostgreSQL WWW 2019-01-30 <20190130154803.GF4383@msg.df7cb.de>
>> Updated for python3. I had to fix several places where {{package}} was
>> rendered as "Package Object". The new syntax is {{package.package}}.
>
> Ping?
tl;dr I do think having a repo browser on pgweb would be nice, but we
need to solve a few fundamental questions first:
1. Will we make the same thing available for the yums?
2. What will be the manual overhead on the pgweb, pginfra, + release team?
And the rest of it:
This will take some involved review. I made a quick pass, and saw a few
things.
First, an off-list comment that Magnus had raised (amongst a few
others): is this be set up to handle RPM/YUM, and if not, what will it
take to get it there? (Will somewhat answer this below).
There are a few things that are immediate nonstarters for me:
1. There is a bunch of DDL hanging out in SQL files that should be in
the Django migration file (and in fact, I don't see a migration file)
2. There appear to be some hardcoded things specific to deb/apt (e.g.
"all" => "amd64") which would not work if we wanted to extend this to
rpm/yum. The question becomes can we / do we want to build a
one-size-fits-all system?
Also:
1. This appears to introduce an extension from PGXN, "debversion" -- I
don't believe we've added any pgxn extensions directly into pgweb (I may
be wrong) but we would have to see what that means from an
administration standpoint.
2. There seem to be some easy improvements to make in some of the logic:
def search(request):
if 'package' in request.GET and request.GET['package']:
package = request.GET['package']
becomes:
def search(request):
if request.GET.get('package'):
package = request.GET['package']
3. For now, the "active" booleans scare me until I understand how much
of this is automated and how much of this is manual. Adding more manual
steps to each release terrifies me, mostly because we have more than our
fair share at the moment :)
Thanks,
Jonathan
