Re: What to do with draft packages?
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:29:43AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> And we have debian/TODO for that as well imho.
I never used this, it might be a reasonable place as well. But we are
actually talking about something the person who started tha packaging
does not want "todo" anything any more. But I don't care about the name
of the file as long as we find a reasonable convention.
> What is important imho is to have proper ITP filed and notified where
> this draft package resides. And that might be also a reasonable place
> where to mention why ITP is not yet fulfilled
While I perfectly agree that the packaging should be linked to the ITP
which is usually done in debian/changelog I do not think that we should
exclusively keep the information we want to provide there. While it
shuold be there for those who are browsing WNPP it tends to become hidden
in the lot of other ITPs and specfically those ITPs which are not closed
by an upload of a package (and that's what we are talking about) will
be closed after 1 year and thus perfectly hidden (it would not be the
first time that a new ITP was issued instead of unarchiving + reopening
an old one).
> Also within blends we have Pkg-URL field, so whoever is looking for a
> draft package of the software of interest they can find it.
Yes, that's true as I mentioned in a previous mail. However, this does
not say anything about the packaging status. The link is there even if
the packaging stuff is bitrotting for years in our SVN. So we need to
propagate some extra information to this place (and the only technical
way I see here is upstream-metadata.yaml).
> Making draft packages available to public before all corners are
> polished is one of the reasons we have http://neuro.debian.net
> repository available. And together with blends information/tasks it
> provides means for proper presentation of the package online until it
> appears at packages.debian.org as well, e.g.:
>
> http://neuro.debian.net/pkgs/jist.html
Well, that's an acceptable workflow for packages you *intend* to publish
at some point in time. I would be afraid of the extra work and would
rather use experimental for stuff I do not really want to be touched by
naive users - but I admit I'm too less involved into this to have an
educated opinion. However, what Charles was initially asking was, what
to do with packaging stuff of projects you do *not* want to finally
upload - at least this was my understanding.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: