Re: Merge debian/blends into debian/upstream? [Was: Additional fields in debian/upstream?]
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 11:02:21PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> > > Hi Yaroslav,
> > > while the YAML format of debian/upstream allows for a lot of arbitrary
> > > information to be added, I think it would be better to limit its scope to data
> > > that describe the upstream work, as opposed to data related to the Debian
> > > archive or relationship with other packages.
> > +1
>
> archive? what archive? ;-) other packages? -- there is none (only a
> loose connection to the Debian packages of this particular piece).
>
> But "the scope" is a good argument -- "blends"/"tasks" sound indeed too
> Debian-specific. But semantically -- shouldn't they be quite a good
> match to describe the domain/purpose of the software?
Well, basically my motivation for "+1"ing was that Blends is a Debian
internal thing which simply sounds wrong in a file called "upstream".
> So may be we could converge on introducing tagging
> (similar/extending to debtagss)? Micahel has already confessed today
> committing an improved debian/upstream for fsl:
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-exppsy/fsl.git;a=blob;f=debian/upstream;hb=HEAD#l29
I'm strongly against duplicating information inside debian/upstream
files. So duplicating DebTags (or even inventing competing tags) should
be really be prevented. I do not see any reason in competing with the
DebTags system inside debian/upstream files. It might be debatable
as well whether these tags qualify as "upstream" information.
> e.g. shouldn't all packages tagged with field::medicine:imaging be
> a part of debian-med imaging ? ;-)
Yes. Currently there is no way to syncronise DebTags with tasks. This
on my todo list since a long time and it never made it to the top of it.
Why not simply adding missing packages to the task if you are aware
about such packages?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: