Re: Metadata exchange with the Tools Platform Ecosystem
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:59:35PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> 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!
+1 !
> 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.
I agree with Steffen here. You are a team member and can fix the
metadata directly. Pull requests are "polite" but not really needed.
You can not really break anything (given you check your changes with
yamllint to make sure the yaml syntax is OK). We are (not yet) very
good in following Merge Requests quickly (extra pings might help) in
case you might hesitate to do direct changes.
> You can also prepare and auto-prepare (!) pull requests of whatever
> nature these may be for all packages that are on salsa.
In principle yes. But if this happens more frequently we need to adapt
our workflow to respect these pull requests in a timely manner.
> For packages in Debian Med, fixing smallish bugs, like adding/correcting
> the bio.tools reference I think you can just do them. A seed for the
> edam annotation would be good, which then the individual maintainers
> extend, by chance. 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. More important in that respect is that the debian/watch
> file is updated so the maintainer is informed about the updates.
If you see something like this in any case please make some noise. We
really want to stay up to date and those hints are really helpful.
> 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.
But do not make much effort to create such a page. For the beginning
keep things as simple as possible for you. Than we might be able to
create the optimal means to cooperate.
Thanks a lot for your cooperation
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: