Il giorno Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:58:30 +0200 (CEST) Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> [Some interested CDD-Ians in CC because this in principle should go to > the debian-custom list but I'm afraid it would miss some people in > Debian-Med that are deeply involved. I'll post a summary there once > discussion is settled down.] > > Hi, Hi Andreas, > over night I had another idea how we could get a better grip on automatically > observing software that is not yet packaged in Debian but on our todo list. > Currently the source of the debian-med meta packages contains so called task > files as input for cdd-dev tools: > > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/cdd/projects/med/trunk/debian-med/tasks/ We should standardize in some way the "Why" field, if we want to keep it in our online pages (well, we could take and show it as-is, but it would be better to organize everything). > It contains Dependencies from packages. The cdd-dev tools verify that > these Dependencies can be fullfilled in Debian main and if not these are > turned into Suggests. I don't understand, sorry. Do you mean that, for example, the "bio" task is just a meta-package to apt-get install that throws in everything? Good :) > So if any package that is listed in the task file is not (yet) available at > the Debian-Mirror it is just suggested in the Meta package. What would be > the effect if we (intentionally) put not yet existing packages into the task > files: > > 1. For inofficial packages (that might be anywhere on an apt-get able > archive in the net and exists in the users sources.list: > The package is installed if the user enables suggests, even if > it is not in official Debian. > -> positive > 2. For not yet existing packages that are ITP/RFP ed as WNPP bug: > Once the WNPP bug will be closed the package is automatically > drawn in without changing the meta package. > -> very positive because debian-med developers will not forget > to include the new package (which unfortunately happened in > the past - shame on me) > 3. For software that is not packaged at all: > Nothing will happen (at least to my knowledge) > -> no harm done This analysis seems reasonable to me. I don't know cdd-dev tools, but from how you described them, they should work like you listed. > > ... > > 1. The cdd-dev tools could install these files into say: > /usr/share/cdd/${CDD}/tasks (in our case CDD=med) > of a the general ${CDD}-config package. This would enable > tools like David's online tools to parse these directly > instead of using the apt-get interface which might give > some gain of spead but more importantly some extra information > like ... I think that the APT interface is better. I mean, at least for packages already in Debian. APT gives versions in various distributions (see apt-cache policy), maintainer, uploader, short/long descriptions, homepage, ... . Everything that we should _NOT_ add to the tasks file. Keep it simple ;). > 2. Add some extra information that is ignored by the meta package > building process but is interesting for our work: > - WNPP bug number (if exists) > - URL of homepage / download > - License > - Short description > - Long description > - Remarks like: Actively developed, complex software, > dead upstream, etc. > - ... This for not-yet-in-mirror packages, right? > Kind regards > Andreas. Kindly, David P.S.: you know I'm at university now. I won't have connectivity for all the week, only on weekends. Maybe I'll have an ADSL in Palermo, but I don't know if and when. I'm sorry I've slowed down the website growth :( -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://snipurl.com/qa_page/ : :' : Linuxer #334216 | http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://www.debianizzati.org/ `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature