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

Re: Lets talk about debian/upstream/edam (Was: r18733 - in trunk/packages/bowtie/tags: . 1.1.1-2/debian 1.1.1-2/debian/upstream)

Hi Andreas & all,

(Ccing Jon Ison from Elixir-DK)

On 02/03/2015 01:55 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:

the recent adding of debian/upstream/edam files without any announcement
seems to create some confusion:

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 02:33:12AM +0000, Charles Plessy wrote:
Author: plessy
Date: 2015-02-03 02:33:11 +0000 (Tue, 03 Feb 2015)
New Revision: 18733

[svn-buildpackage] Tagging bowtie 1.1.1-2

Charles had removed the file which was recently added at the sprint - I
guess because he was not aware about its nature.  I think before those
files will be added we should talk about it and send a short
introduction to the list.

I completely agree with you, and I am sorry if any of my actions actually disturbed the work of debian team members.

Hervé, Steffen, would you be so kind to do this?

I would suggest that I write a draft for such an introduction, then validate it with Andreas, Steffen and Jon Ison before to send it. What about it?

BTW, when realising that you are not using UDD[1] (at least I guess so
from the fact that there is no hit in

    $ grep -Ri udd trunk/community/edam

) and when also noticing that you fetched some metadata in


which is completely available in UDD you most probably are suffering
from an unfortunate design for the problem you want to solve.  I admit
I'm coming up a bit late with this since the Sprint is over but I have
realised this right now.  We should have definitely talked about the
usage of UDD which contains *all* machine readable metadate about our
packages in a very easily accessible form.

If UDD contains all the metadata, then yes, I'm all in favor of this! I really like parsing files, but if there is already a unified source for this, I'll have a look into it. Should we discuss this in the "introduction" thread?


Kind regards


[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UltimateDebianDatabase

Reply to: