Re: References to registries -> debian-med policy?
On 10.09.17 20:22, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:18:46PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
>> this morning brought updates to references to research software
>> catalogues (SciCruch RRIDs, OMICtools, bio.tools) to packages referenced
>> in Debian Med's "NGS" task. At some point we need to decide what
>> packages should be in what task, but that is for another email. The
>> other bio-tasks I will go through as time permits.
> I confirm that I'm not happy about the maintenance of our bio-* tasks
> and that I do not consider these very useful for our users.
>
>> Would you mind me
>> adding this process to the Debian Med policy?
> Feel free to enhance our documentation!
ok, I'll address this then over this week.
>> You may be aware of
>> OMICtools already providing links to our packages and RRIDs are
>> referenced in CWL tool descriptions to auto-provide the software
>> infrastructure for executing CWL-described workflows. In my perception,
>> these references are important to anchor our distribution in the
>> Computational Biology community, so I would also like to anchor those
>> references in the policy.
> Just to let you know: I planed to add this extra information to our
> tasks pages at DebConf. I only managed to do the first half of the task
> to include the information into UDD.
Thank you for this!
> If I would not be that busy to fix RC + important bugs in our packages I
> would continue with this. So anybody who want the metadata displayed on
> the tasks pages soon should start fixing bugs - this would really help a
> lot.
I propose to rather remove packages from the distribution when these do
much work and find no user who cares, at least so if popcon numbers are low.
For the trivial bits, which includes updates and backports, the answer
shall be online editable package instructions and automated testing. The
testing of the larger picture in my mind shall happen with the CWL.
Best,
Steffen
Reply to: