On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:36:20 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:51:41PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > [..] > > So, osmpbf is a perfect candidate for pure pkg-osm maintainance. > > What means "pure" in this context and why do you think that it is > necessary to be pure here. It means that osmpbf has really *nothing* GIS in it, not even those small things needed for an advanced OSM usage/understanding. Apart from the fact that it deals with OSM data, that is. ;) > > About the critical mass: we're all the same people maintaining those > > packages. The OSM guys in debian-gis are mainly Giovanni and me, so it > > would be us maintaining those packages anyway ;) > > Yes, that's true and you will probably be mentioned as uploaders and it > might turn out that nobody else from the Debian GIS team will touch your > package. But that's not the point and I've thought you know the game > from Debian Med: We also have our people who are dedicated / focussed > on for instance microbiology and medical imaging. I think you might > agree that booth fields are at least that different as "pure" GIS and > "pure" OSM (whatever you might understand by this). The only common > thing between microbiology and medical imaging is probably that both are > to some extend used in health care. You will probably remember that you > (as a dentist in spe) without any direct affiliation to both topics has > once touched packages of this field to push some packaging standards, > help fixing bugs etc. So the fact that we widened the project and not > narrowed the focus on "pure" microbiology" and "pure" medical imaging > (from a maintainers perspective this distinction would make perfectly > sense) has widened your focus, has strengthened the team, has enabled > some semi-automatic changes for packaging regarding new > Standards-Versions or something like this and was finally successful > for Debian Med. I understand what you mean. To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this. Team work might help when the "proper" maintainers are inactive, but given the strong involvement of Giovanni and me, and that both of us (+ frankie) are those who would ultimately do the teamwork on debian-gis too... :) > [..] > To come back to Debian GIS with the experiences above: I have the vision > to join all those people who are working with geographic information to > some extend and make this whole group *visible* *inside* Debian and well > known *outside* Debian. So what is your plan to make pkg-osm as a > single packaging team visible inside Debian? How do you want to attract > other packagers which are keen on packaging OSM packages? From time to > time I just learn *by chance* that there are interesting teams some of > my packages would fit in. I personally was about to package OSM > software as well - but I would probably not have known about pkg-osm > because I was not explicitely seeking for it (might be my fault ...). I usually tend to contact maintainers of already-packaged OSM software, and keep track of ITPs on d-d. I've also had negative responses (merkaartor), and that's fine too :) OSM is still a rather young and unpopulated (software) field, so I don't still see a need to > Even the larger focussed Debian GIS team is not doing well in > advertising their work. I personally feel not really in the position to > *speak* *for* the *team*. So I only suggested a DPN article[1] and > asked again two weeks later[2]. I got no "go for it" / "don't do it" or > something like this (which is really not much work) and I think I now > will push the thing to make a project which is worth becoming popular > more known. Do you want to do this announcement work on your own for > OSM or isn't it more simple to just plug in a "by the way, there are > some peeople doing cool OSM stuff in Debian GIS"? I agree the second is easier. And a note about pkg-osm could be put inside the Debian GIS announcement. ;) In my original vision of pkg-osm, I intended to make it a "subset" of debian-gis (i.e. all packages co-maintained by both teams, and kept in debian-gis' repos). A couple of packages would've been out of debian-gis scope (see osmpbf), and would've been kept into pkg-osm repo. Probably the biggest misunderstanding is that you consider pkg-osm at the same level of debian-gis. I don't, I consider it one of its sons ;) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature