[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How to handle mgltools in our tasks files


Andreas Tille schrieb:
> Steffen Möller decided to mention only autodocktools in our tasks
> files which
> create meta package depenendencies.  This implicitely installs several
> mgltools-* packages via the depencencies of autodocktools.  This is fine
> if we only consider the med-bio package as result of the information
> inside
> the tasks files.
> But recently some other tools were developed which use the tasks file as
> a source of information as well and currently these tools just ignore all
> mgltools-* packages because they are not mentioned in the tasks files.
> So I would like to hear your opinion about what should happen in the
> following use cases of the tasks files:
>   1. Web tasks pages:
>      Does it makes sense / would it harm the tasks pages if all the
>      mgltools would be listed there (either in bio or bio-dev task)?
no, it would not, imho. it would be similar to listing all applications
>   2. Bugs pages:
>      The pages should be really watched here (either in task bio or
>      bio-dev) and probably in the status "Depends" because a dependent
>      package depends on them.
This is a good point. One should definitely learn about bugs being
assigned to them.
>   3. QA overview[3]:
>      The packages should be listed really in either bio or bio-dev
>      section instead under "non-free".
> If the question 1 (tasks pages) would be answered with: "Yes, it makes
> sense to list mgltools-* packages as *Depends*" every other issue is
> solved.  There is no practical change inside the metapackage med-bio
> because the effect whether it depends directly or indirectly from the
> packages in question would be the same.
> If question 1 is answered with: "No, these packages would just spoil our
> task list and also do not belong to the bio-dev task" we might need an
> extra field which indicates packages that should be listed on the bugs
> pages and QA pages but not on the tasks page.  This extra feature for
> the webtools stuff is not really hard to implement - but we should just
> discuss whether this is a feature we really need.
I am not sure myself how this should be handled. An option "hide" might
indeed be helpful. It could take "overview", "bugs", "qa" as arguments.
> So what solution would you prefer to be able to keep an eye on these
> mgltools packages?
I'd opt for the listing of the packages in the tasks list and the
introduction of a "hide" attribute. I'll go for an update of that
packages any time soon, btw. Are there any autodockers on this list, btw?



Reply to: