Re: Turning debian/upstream into BibTeX (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)
I can not go into the technical details of this - it is beyond how much I can commit now. And obviously you have to strike a balance between the
effort spent on this and its usefulness.
* I think I can live with only one reference per package. But this seems to be a rather limited solution to me. Any reference per package would
be natural for my judgement.
* Allowing multiple would /invite/ multiple references - as in many of my packages, which may be useful. After all upstream must have chosen
those references for a reason. Ranking them according to upstream's ranking also seems like a good idea.
Thank you for improving the system to hold reference information!
On 21/02/12 16:50, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:58:27AM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>>>> For the task pages, you can indeed take the first or the last entry
>>> I would like to drop the injection of references inside the tasks pages
>>> at all in favour of debian/upstream.
>> IMHO it is well worth keeping references visible in task pages
> Sorry, yes, for sure - it is rather explicitely intended. I want to get
> rid of the (duplication) of information inside tasks _files_ and use the
> way debian/upstream -> UDD -> tasks pages.
>> yes yes and yes -- I was probably not clear -- we are after
>> autogenerated list as well, I just thought that having a
>> complimentary generated "ultimate" .bib could be of use as well.
> OK, no problem with this. If we have invented means to create a dynamic
> database getting a fixed one in addition is probably very cheap.
> Kind regards