Re: Choosing "proper" Section field (Was: Bug#742639: ITP: python-expyriment -- Python library for cognitive and neuroscientific experiments)
Hi Oliver,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:28:50AM +0200, Oliver Lindemann wrote:
> Does that mean that you want me to set the debchange back to <version>-1
> and remove that tag. No problem. I am happy to do that, if that is required.
While required is the wrong word, it is regarded as good practice and
thus I'd recommend it.
> Maybe a stupid question: I simply do not understand this policy. The
> package is already available via NeuroDebian.
That's a good point. I think the NeuroDebian people should take over
here. I was not aware of this and was only speaking from a pure Debian
point of view. I would be happy if NeuroDebian people would come a bit
closer to Debian (keyword "Debian Pure Blend") and do not provoke making
people like me who only know the Debian package pool giving questionable
advise.
> If I do not make a new
> changelog paragraph, this results in two different initial Debian
> release with exactly same revision number (<version>-1). One here and
> one at NeuroDebian. Is that really intended?
In fact in *this* case you might confuse users who have installed a
(NeuroDebian) package with a certain version number if you deliver
another package with the same version but different content. So in
this specific case we need to derive from the good practice advise.
However, STRONGLY (sorry for shouting but I really mean it that way)
recomment, that NeuroDebian follow the good practice of other
derivatives and create version numbers like
<upstreamversion>-0neurodebian1
or so. To explain what I mean I write here what I would consider
a sensible changelog for your package:
python-expyriment (0.7.0+git34-g55a4e7e-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
* Initial release to Debian (Closes: #742639)
* Add list of exclusions for git
* Add doc-base support
* Add watch file for uscan
* Use the correct URLs for the Vcs-* fields (as per Debian Policy 5.6.26)
* Override the Lintian warning about package section
* add: upstream/metadata
* update doc-base
-- Oliver Lindemann <oliver.lindemann@uni-potsdam.de> Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:12:55 +0200
python-expyriment (0.7.0+git34-g55a4e7e-0neurodebian1) neurodebian; urgency=low
* Initial release in NeuroDebian
-- Oliver Lindemann <oliver.lindemann@uni-potsdam.de> Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:35:33 +0100
The oldest paragraph has a lower version number than "*-1" which enables
a smooth upload to the Debian mirror. It also expresses that the target
release is NOT "unstable" (no idea how NeuroDebian is handling release
names - "unstable" should be reserved for Debian unstable. For instance
Ubuntu is using quantal currently (if I'm not miss leaded).
The current changelog entry contains the changes to the first package
(which makes sense if it was released somewhere) and most importantly
the "Closes: #742639" string. If you want to close a bug in Debian you
should close it in an upload to Debian (for the nitpickers: yes, I'm
aware of alternatives, but I'm describing the usual case for a newbee).
Since the package is not yet released the target distribution should be
"UNRELEASED". In Debian Med we have a workflow that the sponsor will
set this to "unstable" before he is doing the upload.
In general we try to approach packages to be inside Debian first and let
user oriented projects - so called Blends[1] - pick from the official
Debian package pool. NeuroDebian is following this route not that
strictly and thus it might come to some inconsistencies which we
observed now. Sorry if I might have created some confusion on your
side.
Hope this clarification makes sense and that NeuroDebian people take
over now with final sponsering since I'm afraid I might miss some more
pieces of information.
Thanks for your work on this package
Andreas.
[1] http://blends.debian.org/blends
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: