Re: OMICtools of any use?

[Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de>]

Hi David,

On 20.12.18 01:35, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 00:04, Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On 13.12.18 13:29, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:15:11PM +0000, Carnë Draug wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 08:11, Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote:
> > > > > I noticed that you reverted a commit by Steffen Moeller in imagej adding
> > > > > an OMICtools identifyer.  For the moment I do not think it is nice to
> > > > > simply remove the work of fellow DDs without a consensus how to deal
> > > > > with these data - thus I reverted that remove for the moment.
> > > > Please revert it again.  I did not remove it because I'm disliking
> > > > omics.  I reverted it because it's wrong.  I did it the first time
> > > > during the summer:
> > > >
> > > >       https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/imagej/commit/415ff687c5
> > > >
> > > > But it was added again.  I removed it yesterday for the same reason:
> > > >
> > > >       https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/imagej/commit/a40be89995
> > > >
> > > > In both cases I have explained on the commit message why it was wrong.
> > > Uhmmm, sorry.  I should have read the full commit message.  I just have
> > > read your e-mail here and have seen your last commit.  Sorry for the
> > > noise.  I've now droped a Comment inside the YAML file (and I cross
> > > fingers that my importer code is robust enough to not stumble about it
> > > ;-) ).
> > The OMICtools entry is about all versions. Just have a look at the
> > references to the literature they give. You can argue that it should
> > have two entries for two major versions. I don't see the need for that,
> > I must admit. In my reading, the assignment was/would be just fine. The
> > inaccuracies is not our's, it is OMICtools. And many, me included, in
> > this case regard it as a feature.
> Hi Steffen
>
> The OMICtools entry seems very specific for version 2.0.0. There's
> even an entry line for version.
Right. I read this as max(all versions out there).
> Both ImageJ 1 and 2 are still under development, are developed in
> different places by different people, and even have different
> licenses.  They are not just two major versions of the same software.
Ok.
> ImageJ2 does encapsulate the ImageJ1 and the separation between
> the two is really muddy.
I sense that OMICtools had felt that this is why there should be only
a single entry for it.
> That entry would make more sense once ImageJ2 gets packaged
> in Debian and someone has already packaged imglib2.

Let's see what happens.

Cheers,

Steffen