Re: What category for edfbrowser (Was: Bug#551045: ITP: edfbrowser -- a viewer for medical timeseries storage files)

[Bas Zoetekouw <bas@zoetekouw.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Andreas,

Sorry for the delay on answering your mail.  I've been quite busy with
non-Debian related stuff.

I am aware about Debian Med being part of the "main" archive.  I
understand my mail was quite badly worded, because I was trying to say
something about svn-buildpackage and its lack of support for the deb
3.0 format at the time.  I guess that's fixed by now, but I haven't
really looked into it since.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in adopting edfbrowser, please go
ahead.  I'm lagging behind in keeping it up to date, so if anyone
likes to maintain it (within or outside debian-med), feel free to take it.

Best regards,
Bas.

On 20-04-2011 13:35 , Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Bas,
>
> I just stumbled upon this nearly one year old posting. I have seen
> that edfbrowser had several updates and is actively maintained.
> However I wonder whether you might consider joining the Debian Med
> team anyway.
>> From your single posting to the list which I answered below I had
>> the
> feeling that you were not fully aware what Debian Med is because
> you used terms like "normal archive" etc. Did my mail helped you
> understanding that we are just approaching to assemble all medical
> software inside the "normal archive" to a set of packages which is
> easier available for users. One part is the (not mandatory) group
> maintenance of packages. An other part is to list the software in
> so called tasks. Could you please at least have a look at the list
> of our tasks[1] and suggest one of them we might mention edfbrowser
> in. I admit I'm a bit unsure whether it is imaging, tools, orp
> practice (it can also show up in more than one task for sure!) or
> if we even need a new category.
>
> Do you maintain perhaps some other packages with relevance for
> medical care which just escaped our attention because we do
> obviosely not know very much about what packages you are working
> on?
>
> Kind regards and thanks for your work on edfbrowser
>
> Andreas.
>
> [1] http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:35:32PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:38:22PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>>> I actually wanted to put this version in the svn repo, but then
>>> it turned out that svn-buildpackage and git-buildpackage don't
>>> support the new dpkg-source format (yet?).
>>
>> To be honest I personally do not uses these tools but rather do
>> all my commits manually. There is no need to use these tools.
>>
>>> Also I don't really think the package should be optional, and
>>> I'm not sure if I feel comfortable allowing uploads by DMs.
>>
>> Well, that's a *suggestion* of the policy - nobody can and has
>> the intend to force you to follow this advise.
>>
>>> So I decided to uplaod the package to the normal archive for
>>> now, and put it in the debian-med repo when these tools are
>>> fixed.
>>
>> Well, uploading to "the normal archive" has to be done anyway.
>> It's just a good idea to have the packageing stuff in a Vcs. But
>> it is fine so far if this is your decision for the moment.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>>
>> -- http://fam-tille.de
>>
>>
>> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>> listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive:
>> http://lists.debian.org/20100427193532.GB31902@an3as.eu
>>
>>
>

- -- 
Bas Zoetekouw.

Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright,
The bridall of the earth and skie:
The dew shall weep thy fall tonight;
For thou must die.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3fZnMACgkQK67kHwZE+rfiMACghpbg5WRGTzoETLazuye19oPv
kwAAn3rrA9faLG0+Wk5VdUYCO1hffjEU
=I2qA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----