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:
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?