Re: Redundant fields in debian/upstream/metadata and possible lintian check
Hi Dylan,
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:25:50PM +0200, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
> 2018-05-23 15:39 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>:
> > These data are gathered in UDD[2]. When I inspected the log of the UDD
> > importer I noticed that there are a lot of redundant fields like
> > "Homepage" or "Watch" where we agreed that these fields should not be
> > duplicated in upstream/metadata. There are also typos and freely
> > invented Fields which are not specified on Wiki[1] (like Distributor',
> > 'CRAN', 'Wiki'). I think it makes sense to have some lintian check for
> > this undefined fields. I think I'll file a wishlist bug about this
> > soon.
>
> There is already an open bug #731340 for this [1], so it should be
> better to make noise in this one. The bug report contains a patch to
> check valid fields but it needs to be modified before to be merged
> into lintian (currently, I don't have time to do it).
Thanks for refreshing my memory (which I vaguely remember is not the
first time you did. ;-) )
> > However, before I do I'd like to discuss the fields Name and Contact.
> > DEP8 defines[3] the fields Upstream-Name and Upstream-Contact which are
> > the same values in a file that has a high probability to be properly
> > maintained. In the case of r-* packages from CRAN or Bioconductor it
> > can be even automatically updated (via dh-update-R ... its actually not
> > really done but I think this could be implemented easily - dh-make-R at
> > least generates the fields at the time of initial package creation).
> >
> > I wonder whether we should maintaining duplicated information and thus
> > would like to hear your opinion about orphaning these fields in
> > debian/upstream/metadata.
> >
>
> Pretty off topic, but more generally, should we transfer some
> information (i.e. registry references, publications, etc) from the
> d/upstream/metadata to the AppStream cross-distro file [2]?
> Charles suggested last year to push registry references into the
> AppStream file [3]. I opened a bug to add a field for this in the
> AppStream spec [4] two weeks ago but no response yet (CCing Matthias
> as AppStream upstream to get his opinion).
I do not consider this off topic. In general I'm in absolute favour of
providing the data we gathered also for other distributions. I
personally have no idea about AppStream, but if there is any clear path
from upstream/metadata to AppStream I'd follow this. All applications I
know are based on the UDD data and switching the UDD gatherer from
upstream/metadata to AppStream should be no big deal.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/731340
[2] https://appstream.debian.org/
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2017/08/msg00022.html
[4] https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues/189
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: