Re: upstream/metadata with references to software catalogs^Wregistries?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:53:39PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> >>> Registry:
> >>> Name: bio.tools
> >>> Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1
> >>> Registry:
> >>> Name: SEQwiki
> >>> Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie
> >> Just for the Syntax: This should rather be
> >>
> >> Registry:
> >> - Name: bio.tools
> >> Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1
> >> - Name: SEQwiki
> >> Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie
> >> This would ensure that we have only one Registry field which might
> >> contain a set of values.
> Matúš and I am fine with that. We then just rename it to "Registrations"
> and the "Name" becomes "Registry":
>
> Registrations:
> - Registry: bio.tools
> Entry: http://bio.tools/tool/DebianMed/bowtie/1.1.1
> - Registry: SEQwiki
> Entry: http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Bowtie
Sounds sensible.
> While iterating Hervé's upload script on the first packages, we found
> the same issue to appear for the publications. Those are "Reference"
> today, which then most likely should be "References" and the content
> should then also be itemised, right?
Right in principle. However, I personally would insist that those who
find this really problematic should do the coding at all relevant places
to fix it. I personally feel my time not spent productively used by
doing renamings.
> to avoid trouble with the parser.
What trouble with the parser do you mean?
> Though in subversion only artemis, muscle and trimmomatic are that
> pedantic. Do you have a better interpretation of the parser results?
I do not understand the question.
> >>> The bio.tools registry has the obvious problem that the version should
> >>> not be passed along. Fixable, one tends to think.
> >> ... fixable at bio.tools side you mean, right?
> yes
OK.
> And then certainly I'll check out how to get our own task pages adapted.
Nice.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: