[Forgot CC debian-qa] On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:12:43PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:01:57PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > > > > > CREATE TABLE upstream-metadata ( > > > > package text, > > > > key1 text, > > > > key2 text, > > > > ... > > > > keyN text, > > > > PRIMARY KEY package > > > > ); > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE upstream-metadata ( > > > > package text, > > > > key text, > > > > value text, > > > > PRIMARY KEY (package,key) > > > > ); > > I have not found a nice simple UNIX tool to convert this to a muliti-column > table suitable for the first SQL example. Nevertheless, it can be doe easily > with R (see http://upstream-metadata.debian.net/scripts/umeta-reshape.r).
Well, there is no need to provide the data as multicolumn. I would prefer a simple JSON export. The UDD gatherer is quite flexible and can read all kinds of key=value relations, but JSON is a reasonable format. > So, which format would be preferable, the wide one (first SQL example), or the > long one (second SQL example?). For the moment, I have placed two files in > both > formats at the following URLs: > > http://upstream-metadata.debian.net/for_UDD/biblio.long > http://upstream-metadata.debian.net/for_UDD/biblio.wide To make it clear: It is NOT necessary that YOU provide a preformatted file according to the destination table. We rather need to DECIDE which format is the best for further use of the UDD based data. I tried to explain this in a posting on debian-qa list[1]. So please do not spend much time in different formatings and rather use a common ASCII format with unique key - value relation. Kind regards and thanks for your effort about upstream metadata Andreas. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2009/10/msg00048.html -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
