Re: Package status in Debian-med website
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Michael Hanke wrote:
This is actually not a problem. dinifti will not be part of etch anyway
(I filed an RC bug against it, because it refuses to work on amd64).
Thanks for the hint.
I very much like this idea. IMHO it would be better to let the
debian-med website show what actually is available and not what might be
available sometime in the future.
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 :-()
Having this content generated from the
meta-packages itself would be awesome.
The idea is not that new:
http://people.debian.org/~tille/cdd/ch-todo.en.html#s-visibility
unfortunately having an idea does not guarantee that it will be
really implemented. It is on my TODO list since more than two years ...
The more volatile content might be better placed into the debian wiki as
this removes the bottleneck of a webmaster to a certain degree.
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.
I'm not saying that Tobias is not doing good work -- because he does
good work.
No doubt. But none of us is available 7/24 and Tobias is just spending
his spare time. I'm always converned about the "run over by bus factor"
in those sparse occupied positions.
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
A wiki is much more intuitive.
You will not really convince mir in general, but there are definitely
fields were Wikis have their strength.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: