Hi Daniel, Thanks for the comments, replies inline. On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 02:02:23PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > My own feeling about this is that it is better to try and encourage each > distribution to render their data using some standard formats, such as > iCalendar and then there are multiple options available for using the data: Brilliant! Because this is the same feeling I have. I would like to be able to use RDF and linking of RDF datasets between distributions. This allows for complex queries on the datasets. > a) use productivity tools such as Mozilla Lightning or GNOME Evolution > to aggregate and render the data into a to-do list for a developer Exporting iCalendar from such an RDF dataset should be trivial. > b) build reporting tools similar to UDD that are independent of any > specific distribution, to scrape data from the distributions and from > other sources like the Github API, upstream bugzilla instances, etc Yep, again, this also becomes trivial with RDF being published or data being scraped and converted into RDF. > The benefit of this strategy is that it is more modular and people who > are not involved with Debian may be more likely to contribute to a > generic, high level solution. Putting too much in UDD may make it > harder to maintain and keep in sync with the other distributions. Putting information in UDD is not a final solution, but it helps us get towards the final solution. The final solution would be to have no derivatives information in UDD at all, and simply reference the URIs of RDF datasets elsewhere. Dumps of these datasets can be aggregated and queries can be performed across them. > - you can already use the iCalendar format to see a combined bug list > from Debian bug tracker, Github issue list and Fedora bugzilla: > http://danielpocock.com/debian-maintainer-dashboard-now-provides-icalendar-feeds Was not aware of this, I'll take a look. > - I've had applications from two GSoC students willing to work on some > related concepts, having an additional mentor for this project would be > really helpful. Details are here: > > https://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2015/StudentApplications#Developer_Horizon_:_Dashboard This looks rather exciting and I am interested! Events was something I had in my mind for adding to rdf.debian.net. > - maybe upstreams can be encouraged to keep some metadata file in their > tarballs and repositories that helps identify the relevant package names > in each distribution? This is entirely possible. CPAN already do have RDF in their packages, and I don't believe it will be too hard to encourage them to add semantic links at all. > - maybe package maintainers could be offered some new field in > debian/control that allows them to identify the corresponding Fedora > packages? I would probably be against this. This isn't going to scale. It's a tricky problem though. > - extracting compiled library packages, it may be possible to identify > SONAMEs and use that data to cross-reference package names Yes, this is a brilliant idea! > - there are a couple of instances where I do think it is compelling for > Debian UDD to pull data from non-Debian sources, e.g. knowing when there > is a new upstream release, knowing about a security advisory and for > some packages it is useful to know if the next release of Debian is > carrying at least the same version of something that is in Fedora's next > release. I'd like the information about derivatives and other distributions to be minimal, and then use RDF to link to the information provided by other distributions. I would definitely like to avoid pulling in more data than is necessary. Thanks, Iain. -- e: irl@fsfe.org w: iain.learmonth.me x: irl@jabber.fsfe.org t: EPVPN 2105 c: 2M0STB g: IO87we p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49
Attachment:
pgpbnnxLiGN7F.pgp
Description: PGP signature