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

Re: dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?



Hi Yaroslav,

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:36:19PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> 
> Chris asked me to take over maintenance in Debian as well, and Ghislain
> blessed me as well.

Fine for me.

> To minimize amount of work for myself, I would like
> to continue with NeuroDebian packaging, just polishing it up (copyright
> file and may be some cleanup).  How NeuroDebian packaging is
> different (dropping historical perspective) ATM it is at
> http://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix 

Please do not do this.  The development platform for Debian packages is
salsa.debian.org and *lots* of QA tools are relying to find the packaging
code here.  I do not mind about the team but I mind a lot about the host
any Blends package can be found.
 
> - main difference is our git repo sitting on top of the upstream so we
>   also can produce an .orig. tarball with dcm_qa submodule which
>   provides data for testing of correct operation.  That increases the
>   tarball size but IMHO it is worth it!

I do not mind about the tarball size.
 
>     - we run (build-time only ATM) tests using that dcm_qa/ data.  That
>       already allowed to iron out differences in behavior between i386 and
>       amd64.
> 
>       I expect though that testing for all the other platforms would open a
>       huge can of worms.  But I think it would be beneficial in the long
>       run to name them all ;)  I bet Chris (the upstream) would be
>       "thrilled" to help nailing them down
> 
>   any objections on relying on gbp to produce orig source tarballs?
> 
> - in a rush toward "let's converge packaging" I have added needed then
>   epoch 1: to the versioning.    It would need to "propagate" into
>   Debian.  I hope that is ok

We all know epochs are ugly but sometimes needed.
 
> - we still use debhelper 9 for maximal ease of backportability.
> 
>   any objections?

No.
 
> - we do carry a few patches 
>   https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix/tree/debian/debian/patches
>   including patches for the packaging backports on elderly jessie (and equally old ubuntus)
>   https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix/blob/debian/debian/patches/jessie-dsc-patch
>   probably some symlinks for really old /EOLed ubuntus could be removed,
>   will do now
> 
>   But any objections against carrying backport patches?

No.
 
> Please let me know what you think

All those packaging details sound sensible but please, pretty
please stick to salsa.d.o.

Thank you for your work on this package

     Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: