Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages (second iteration)
Hi Jochen,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:48:20PM +0100, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
>
> I see ros-opencv-apps in the list, which is not in testing (and will not
> make it, due to the freeze). So I assume it shouldn't be categorised as
> well.
Please categorise *any* of your packages - be it in testing or not. The
metapackage creation process will verify whether a package is in testing
and add Recommends *only* if a package is in testing. If not the
package gets a Suggests - which IMHO is very sensible since it might
point the user to install from unstable if wanted or may be there might
be a backport.
Moreover the package gets listed on the according tasks page as a
valuable information. Apropos tasks pages: The right moment to add a
binary package to the tasks files is once you have created a record in
Vcs (Git or SVN). This is parsed nightly and the tasks pages will show
a record of your work in the "Packaging has started and developers might
try the packaging code in VCS" section. So users will be informed that
some work is going on (and might help you).
So I pushed
$ git diff HEAD^
diff --git a/tasks/robotics b/tasks/robotics
index b85b7c0..c01eb4c 100644
--- a/tasks/robotics
+++ b/tasks/robotics
@@ -137,6 +137,8 @@ Depends: ros-desktop-full,
ros-perception,
ros-simulators
+Depends: ros-opencv-apps
+
Depends: openrtm
Homepage: http://www.openrtm.org/
Responsible: Thomas Moulard <thomas.moulard@gmail.com>
Please correct it if you do not agree.
> Regarding ros-ros, I think it would make sense to blacklist it, as it is
> only the base of a lot of ROS components already categorised.
Blacklisted.
Thanks for your input
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: