Re: upstream/metadata with references to software catalogs^Wregistries?
[For readers of Blends list: We are discussing an additional field
in debian/upstream/metadata ]
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:12:46PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> Our plans are to offer reference to
> * the bio.tools registry (obviously)
> * the SeqWiki (since this community feeds the bio.tools and for now we
> would start upload to bio.tools what is not coming from the SeqWiki)
>
> The debian/upstream/metadata file would then for bowtie see the
> additional lines
>
> Registry:
> Name: bio.tools
> Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1
> Registry:
> Name: SEQwiki
> Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie
Just for the Syntax: This should rather be
Registry:
- Name: bio.tools
Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1
- Name: SEQwiki
Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie
This would ensure that we have only one Registry field which might
contain a set of values.
> The bio.tools registry has the obvious problem that the version should
> not be passed along. Fixable, one tends to think.
... fixable at bio.tools side you mean, right?
> The motivation for a package maintainer to add those references could be
> * better visibility, i.e. hope for a reverse link, so the own work is
> found more quickly, at least for the bio.tools this is coming
> * the references may guide users to additional information on how to
> include the package in their workflow
Please note: Adding these values to upstream/metadata does not make
things user visible automatically. We need to patch tasks pages / other
things to let the data show up.
> If there is no opposition to add such references, then we may go ahead
> with a few today.
I'm CCing Blends list to get further input for the idea.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: