Re: Debian science policy: Priorities field
Hi,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:09:47PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I think the rationale is that Science packages "are only likely to be
> > useful if you already know what they are". However they are not at all
> > like the stated example (detached debugging symbols, so I do believe
> > that the meaning of the Policy is that most of our packages should be of
> > Priority "optional" and our Science Policy is sort of wrong.
>
> FWIW, I agree.
We should make it really clear that "optional" is the correct priority
(except for debuging symbols etc). As an extra argument for optional I
have heard thatsome QA procedures are not applied for "extra" packages -
this is nothing what we want since we want to get all QA means applied
for our packages. So please use "optional" or you can also use
"optional" for your packages but if you are really unsure about the
priority simply use "optional".
> The other problem is that dh_make is (still?) putting "extra" in the
> generated template.
In Debian Med policy we explicitly do not recommend dh_make which has
some other misfeatures. We rather recommend to do
if [ ! -d debian ]; then svn export svn://anonscm.debian.org/svn/debian-med/trunk/package_template debian ; fi
It would be pretty simple to adapt this template for Debian Science.
The good thing is that you have all those team features included and
there is even a template for the citations in debian/upstream/metadata.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: