[Savannah-dev] [Bug #150] Files manager relies on kernel implementation

[nobody]

=================== Bug #150: Latest Modifications ==================
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=150&group_id=11

Changes by: Mathieu Roy <address@hidden>
Date: 2002-May-03 22:23 (Europe/Paris)

            What     | Removed                   | Added
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Resolution | None                      | Fixed
              Status | Open                      | Closed


------------------ Additional Follow-up Comments ----------------------------
version are rsorted
files are sorted

and packages are as they were (basically, the reference is the date of the file 
creation) - if needed, we'll get thems sorted also.



=================== Bug #150: Full Bug Snapshot ===================


Submitted by: gmorin                    Project: savannah                       
Submitted on: 2002-May-02 13:41
Category:  Download area                Severity:  3 - Ordinary                 
Priority:  Normal                       Bug Group:  None                        
Resolution:  Fixed                      Assigned to:  yeupou                    
Status:  Closed                         Effort:  0.00                           

Summary:  Files manager relies on kernel implementation

Original Submission:  The file manager uses {open,read,close} dir to display
the files. They are unsorted, that is to say that the
order is determined by the filesystem order. That can lead
to uncoherent display.

I think the files should be associated to some information 
in the database to at least determine the order.

HTH.

Guillaume.

Follow-up Comments
*******************

-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2002-May-03 22:23             By: yeupou
version are rsorted
files are sorted

and packages are as they were (basically, the reference is the date of the file 
creation) - if needed, we'll get thems sorted also.

-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2002-May-03 19:44             By: yeupou
Ok, I'll find a way to fix this as soon as possible (ie not this evening, got 
work to do).

What is the problem with sort ?
If I do 

$num = array ("1.2","1.3", "1.3.1", "1.0");
sort ($num);
reset ($num);
while (list ($key, $val) = each ($num)) {
    echo $val."<br>\n";
}

I get 
  1.0
  1.2
  1.3 
  1.3.1
as expected.

BTW, if the sorting with numbers absolutely dont work, we can simply convert 
before calling sort any number as
0 = a
1 = b
2 = c
3= d
4 = e
5
6
7
8
9 = j

What to you think about it ?

In fact, if it works, we should sort packages in the same ways, since it 
becomes a sorting manner understandable.



-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2002-May-03 19:20             By: gmorin
This is really annoying, look at http://savannah.gnu.org/files/?group_id=443

-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2002-May-02 14:39             By: gmorin
Indeed, the issue is significant only for versions. Sorting
alphabetically is not a good fix, because it breaks numbers
sorting (e.g see -n option of sort).

-------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2002-May-02 14:11             By: yeupou
In fact, the idea was to avoid changing anything is the way files are already 
managed. And so, to avoid using database.

Frankly, I dont really think that would lead to an really disturbing 
"uncoherent display".

Files are displayed as this package -> version -> file.

So, the high risk is to get
  popol.rpm
in the top of 
  popol.tar.gz

instead of
  popol.tar.gz
in the top of 
  popol.rpm

And it doesnt seem to be really problematic.


About versions and packages, it should be classified alphabetically, right.
But I dont think it's interesting to do this using database. It can be done by 
PHP.

Using database means that users cant use this feature without using a browser, 
and personnally I think that's uncool (I dont  - and I dont want to - use 
browser to manage files, and I'm probably not the only one).



For detailed info, follow this link:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=150&group_id=11