Re: Package status in Debian-med website
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:28:25AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Michael Hanke wrote:
<snip>
> While you are right that the really included contents has highest
> priority, the not yet included stuff has its sense:
>
> * TODO list for people seeking something to do ;-)
> This should especially include links to WNPP bugs (which
> could probably be automated as well because aour bugs are
> nicely tagged.
> * Hint for people what kind of software exists outside Debian-Med
> There is no complete list of Free Software that is relevant for
> Debian-Med - our list is probably not complete either - but
> our users are thankful for such a list. They could pick projects
> from there or at least ask us to include a project (RFP).
> Moreover it helps us coordinating our work if we place remarks
> about the quality and relevance of this software into the
> descriptions.
> * Some part would be quite empty if we not at least list the
> not yet included projects. ;-) (or rather :-()
I fully agree with you, but as you said below using the wiki at least
for some parts might be a good compromise between the amount of
available information and a report of the current status of Debian-med.
<snip>
> Well this might be a reasonable compromise that fullfills the items
> I listed above while it enables automatic generation at the same time.
> We could add a link to the relevant Wiki page for each section.
>
> >I know we had this discussion before: A wiki does not increase the
> >number of contributions per se, but at least for me it would. I find it
> >much more satisfying to be able to just modify something instead of
> >posting patches and waiting for someone to apply it.
>
> As somebody who has concerns about Wikis I would agree here that
> for the moving target of not yet included projects which do
> not necessarily have to be translated a Wiki might be the
> apropriate choice.
Thanks for pointing me to the translations, I completely ignored this.
You're definitely right!
<snip>
> >But in fact I cannot really say anything about it, because I
> >never submitted a patch (only suggested modifications). This is partly due
> >to missing knowledge at my end. ATM I do not even know where I can get the
> >wml files from.
>
> Just for the sake of information:
>
> http://www.debian.org/devel/website/working
Thanks.
> >A wiki is much more intuitive.
>
> You will not really convince mir in general, but there are definitely
> fields were Wikis have their strength.
;)
I created a wiki version of the med-imaging page, so we have something
concrete to discuss about.
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMedImaging
I have included the list of official packages for the moment (did that
before I read about the translations). I also borrowed Charles' idea of
including popularity stats and technical reports.
Perhaps an additional link to a list of tagged bugs makes sense.
I'd like to hear comments about what should or should not be part of
such wiki page.
Please feel free to edit this page.
Best,
Michael
--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke
ICQ: 48230050
Reply to: