Re: shall we keep collecting suggestions in the task files?
Hi Holger,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 02:47:45PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> as we keep many suggestions, candidates,
Keeping candidates is perfectly supported. However, you can ... and
should provide some metadata for candidates. The way you can do this
is either
1. Add some rudimentary packaging in your packaging VCS containing
a valid d/changelog, d/control including Homepage and description
and optionally a DEP5 formatted d/copyright skeleton. There is
an UDD importer that fetches this data and adds the info to the
tasks page.
2. Add the metadata right into the tasks file.
Both is explained in the Blends documentation[1]. Option 1. is prefered
since it shows that your interest into the package is somehow "honest".
The Med Bio task[2] provides an extensive example of all options.
> valid packages which then get
> orphaned or renamed, in the tasks files, the task files collect "dust"
> and thus it becomes harder to see real issues in the task files.
I personally think that so called "prospective packages" should always
be accompanied by some metainformation which enables rendering on the
tasks pages. If you do not mind providing this bit of information I
doubt that the intent to work on this will be really honest. So it is
really easy to detect "dust": Dependencies that are not in the Debian
package pool and do not have any metainformation are dust, IMHO.
> Using the output from the udd importer this is the dust there is
> currently, see below.
>
> I've checked some of the packages and some of them are indeed provided by
> alternatives, so I don't think now is there right time to clean this up,
> but rather after the Jessie release.
Hmmm, unfortunately this argument was used even two releases before. :-(
> And I also think this will only be
> useful if we change the way we keep track of suggested packages.
+1 (see above)
> Maybe
> have a special task file just for those?
I do not think this is a good idea since by nature this is not really a
task in the sense we are using tasks.
> And then once they become
> available, we move them to the "real" tasks? This sounds a bit like a
> generally useful feature for blends-dev - what do you think?
No. Blends-dev has a feature to deal with non-existing packages.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://blends.debian.org/blends/ch08.html#edittasksfiles
[2] http://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio#pkgvcs-debs
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: