Re: post-inst message for autodock
[actually putting debian-blends list in CC and I would welcome to
move the discussion what to store in tasks files and where to
fetch data from to this list because it belongs there. I
have set Reply-To]
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 06:41:52PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 05:31:08PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:12:00PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > My proposal would be to add an inofficial control file field like
> > > XB-Registration: http://foo.org/register which could be exposed in the
> > > task pages as a "Register as a user for this package" link on the task
> > > pages.
> >
> > This actually will not work. The X<something> fields do not make their
> > way to any place where we can fetch them. Bat as I said: We might
> > maintain this information right into the tasks file. Currently there
> > is the Remark field as you can see for instance at
> >
> > http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/bio#act
> >
> > (below normal description). This is very easily doable - just tell
> > me which text should show up there.
>
> Well, I'd rather have tasks pull in information from other sources -
Sure - as long as the information is available at some point that's
basically the idea.
> while I think task pages are incredibly useful, they should not be the
> only source for some kind of information.
Currently the task *files* just define dependencies for existing packages
and other "stuff" for software we do not have in Debian (so no control) to
build the tasks pages. Any information about a package which is not
propagated to UDD is *really* hard to obtain and I see no point in finding
an intermediate quick (not even dirty - it was invented for things like this)
solution by just adding a "Remark" field.
> How about formalizing README.Debian for our needs? (so both for
> registration/support and citation/references, besides some generally
> free-form README).
This somehow brings us back to prior discussions about citations.
IMHO any file called README is by nature no structured file - but
we do need structured information. That's why we actually need
to agree to a new file which might gather this kind of structured
information as well as tools processing this file. One of this
tools would be one to extract these files and move their content
into UDD where we in turn might be able to use it for the tasks
pages. My rough estimation is that this will not realised in the
next couple of years - that's why I suggest for the time beeing
adding Remarks fields fullfills the purpose.
> Would the tasks pages be able to extract and parse that?
No. The tools which are creating the tasks pages process the
tasks files and information inside UDD exclusively and there is
no reason for me to change this (but I accept patches and even
more welcome UDD additions which would me encourage to add the
needed work for Blends tools).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: