[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tasks overview wishlist: Canonical citing reference

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Michael Banck wrote:

One thing I'd like to have added to the nice package overviews at
http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/chemistry.html etc. is a
canonical reference which should be given in scientific papers using
that package.


I don't think this belongs into the package description, but maybe as a
X-* field in debian/control post-lenny.

IMHO this is a reasonable solution because it enables a clear way to
obtain this information in a structured manner.

For lenny, we could add a
field/comment in some svn repository (not sure from what sources those
nice overviews are generated).

Well, a hackish solution would be to add this field to the tasks files.
That would be quite easy to implement but is available only in the
tasks overview and nowhere else (well, in principle there is a chance
to move the information to some place if you are using the meta packages
and we somehow propagate the information from the tasks files to the
binary meta package to a defined place this is also somehow possible
but not really nice (= hackish) and I would wait with implementing this
until the cdd-dev tools are rewritten (which has to be done anyway because
of an Arch: all/any issue which is completely unrelated to this topic
here but it needs a rewrite anyway and we could regard such kind of
stuff easily then).

I could imagine for example inside task bio:

  Depends: clustalw
  References: "Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0", Larkin M., et al.
              Bioinformatics 2007 23(21):2947-2948

which might be moved below the package descriptions as "References".
You could use the normal formatting of debian/control files with item
lists.  The drawback of this easily to implement hack I see immediately
that you have to remove the reference from the description first (=reupload
the binary) because mentionien references twice locks just stupid.  So
we have to touch the package anyway (in case a reference is mentioned
in the description).  That's why I would not really prefer this which
has several other drawbacks.  IMHO the only reasonable case where we
could just test this reference feature is to add references in the
suggested structured way to prospective packages which do not have any
information in Debian Packages files.

Again, for MPQC, this would be

DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/46/1/031, DOI:10.1002/jcc.20815

Same as above for References.

Kind regards



Reply to: