Hello Steffen and everyone, ^^
Giant thanks for your quick and enthusiastic answer!
On 2020-11-11 16:59, Steffen Möller wrote:
> Hello Hervé, hello Matúš,
>
> On 11.11.20 16:36, Hervé Ménager wrote:
>> Hello Debian-ers,
>> We (ELIXIR Tools Platform) have been working a lot on the Tools
>> Platform lately. One of the major contributors is Debian Med, and
>> collecting the package metadata from you will soon enable:
>> - cross-linking between e.g. bio.tools and Debian Med packages
>> - cross-validation and enrichment of metadata.
>
> How cool is that!
>
> I just checked https://bio.tools/clustalo and found the "software
> package" link to Debian's tracker. Great!
>
>> Speaking of which, our current setup is very convenient for us: we can
>> update Debian metadata at any time, and use it to produce better tool
>> descriptions. *But*, one thing which is unclear is how we can
>> contribute back some metadata to your packages. Would there be any
>> kind of interest on your side in e.g. opening Merge Requests on salsa
>> when some metadata can use some update? If so, should our system open
>> these MRs automatically or semi-automatically (assuming we can define
>> precisely when a metadata difference mandates a correction on the
>> Debian side)?
>
> You personally have access to salsa.debian.org/med-team and can go for
> anything exceptional without further delay.
>
> You can also prepare and auto-prepare (!) pull requests of whatever
> nature these may be for all packages that are on salsa.
>
> For packages in Debian Med, fixing smallish bugs, like
> adding/correcting
> the bio.tools reference I think you can just do them.
Great!
We could correct the bio.tools reference for those tools|packages that
have a link to Debian's tracker, but those would expectedly have a valid
bio.tools ID in Debian already :) Or am I wrong?
> A seed for the edam annotation would be good, which then the individual
> maintainers
> extend, by chance.
This is an excellent idea!
> I do not think I would in an automated way update
> package descriptions. And the URLs should also be checked manually.
> Even
> if you have the correct newer one, the one that is listed is likely the
> one where the software was downloaded from and it identifies the
> sources, too.
Hmm, good points.
Maybe we'll have to be a bit careful about the versions of the source
pkg in Debian and those that a particular bio.tools record is valid for
(N.B. such annotation is optional in bio.tools). Such check, where
possible, may apply to generating the edam seed, too.
> More important in that respect is that the debian/watch
> file is updated so the maintainer is informed about the updates.
Ok, thanks for the reminder, I see this is crucial.
>
> As a start, I think a mere web page with lists of changes that you want
> to feed back would be nice so we can think along.
Indeed, I think this is the way to start, before we dive into complex
functionality.
>
> Thank you both!
>
> Steffen (has added/updated already three bio.tools references today :o)
> )
So super cool, first place medal Steffen!
Thanks so much,
Matus