Re: debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:44:48AM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> 
> @Andreas, I am mostly concerned about getting the references to
> registries as quickly as possible to our task pages. What do you
> suggest? Continue for now with debian/upstream/metadata and move to
> appstream as soon as we know how this all relates to upstream/metadata
> and have made respective holistic decisions?

For the moment I can not find any data in appstream metadata files.
Once this is decided and there are some data I see no problem to import
it into UDD. 

Kind regards

  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Dylan,

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:17:29AM +0200, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
> > fully grasp how to get it in and - is not everything in
> > upstream/metadata something for appstream? Also, from what I got, this
> > shoud all be redistributed with the upstream source tree and not be kept
> > within Debian to the degree I got this right.
> >
> 
> I agree that could be pushed in the appstream file instead the
> metadata file. By this way, it will be easier reused by other
> distributions.

I fully agree but this has not happened so far.  If somebody intends
to feed this metadata into appstream files please let me know and
I'll extend the UDD importer.

> Indeed, appstream and upstream/metadata seems to be redundant. We
> should probably propose new fields in the specification [1].

You have a point here.  It seems somebody needs to do the work to sort
this out.  I'm fine with adapting things in UDD.

> We can distribute the appstream file in the deb package until upstream
> redistribute it. It was what I have done with the galileo package.

In the file debian/debian/galileo.metainfo.xml I can not find the type
of information we currently maintain in debian/upstream/metadata.  Can
you provide a better example?

Kind regards

   Andreas.

> [1] https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Steffen Möller]

On 15.08.17 00:17, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2017-08-12 13:25 GMT+02:00 Steffen Möller :
>> On 12.08.17 11:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> I wonder if this metadata would be even more useful via AppStream.  From
>>> https://appstream.debian.org/:
>>>
>>>   AppStream is a cross-distro XML format to provide metadata for 
>>> software
>>>   components and to assign unique identifiers to software.
>>
>> I was not aware of it. So, yes, it should go to upstream. I just do not
>> fully grasp how to get it in and - is not everything in
>> upstream/metadata something for appstream? Also, from what I got, this
>> shoud all be redistributed with the upstream source tree and not be kept
>> within Debian to the degree I got this right.
>>
> I agree that could be pushed in the appstream file instead the
> metadata file. By this way, it will be easier reused by other
> distributions.
> Indeed, appstream and upstream/metadata seems to be redundant. We
> should probably propose new fields in the specification [1].
> We can distribute the appstream file in the deb package until upstream
> redistribute it. It was what I have done with the galileo package.
>
> Best regards,
> Dylan
>
> [1] https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues


@Andreas, I am mostly concerned about getting the references to
registries as quickly as possible to our task pages. What do you
suggest? Continue for now with debian/upstream/metadata and move to
appstream as soon as we know how this all relates to upstream/metadata
and have made respective holistic decisions?

Best,

Steffen

Re: debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Dylan Aïssi]

Hi,

2017-08-12 13:25 GMT+02:00 Steffen Möller :
>
> On 12.08.17 11:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if this metadata would be even more useful via AppStream.  From
>> https://appstream.debian.org/:
>>
>>   AppStream is a cross-distro XML format to provide metadata for software
>>   components and to assign unique identifiers to software.
>
>
> I was not aware of it. So, yes, it should go to upstream. I just do not
> fully grasp how to get it in and - is not everything in
> upstream/metadata something for appstream? Also, from what I got, this
> shoud all be redistributed with the upstream source tree and not be kept
> within Debian to the degree I got this right.
>

I agree that could be pushed in the appstream file instead the
metadata file. By this way, it will be easier reused by other
distributions.
Indeed, appstream and upstream/metadata seems to be redundant. We
should probably propose new fields in the specification [1].
We can distribute the appstream file in the deb package until upstream
redistribute it. It was what I have done with the galileo package.

Best regards,
Dylan

[1] https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues

Re: debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Steffen Möller]

Hi Charles,

On 12.08.17 11:31, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 07:45:23PM +0200, Steffen Möller a écrit :
>> In a direct email to Charles (asking if "Registry" was OK after becoming
>> aware of the reserved keyword "Registration" with a different semantics,
>> "Catalog" would be an alternative) I had raised the idea that we could
>> possibly use the same concept to assign packages to task pages of any
>> blend. This seems likely to simplify the packager's workflow since all
>> information about the package is in the same place. 
>>
>> The format could be
>>
>>     Registry:
>>    - Name: Blend
>>   Entry: med/ngs
> Hi Steffen and everybody,
>
> sorry to be slow to answer !
>
> I think that the format you propose is fine.


That is good to hear.


>
> I wonder if this metadata would be even more useful via AppStream.  From
> https://appstream.debian.org/:
>
>   AppStream is a cross-distro XML format to provide metadata for software
>   components and to assign unique identifiers to software.


I was not aware of it. So, yes, it should go to upstream. I just do not
fully grasp how to get it in and - is not everything in
upstream/metadata something for appstream? Also, from what I got, this
shoud all be redistributed with the upstream source tree and not be kept
within Debian to the degree I got this right.

Would a CWL-based tool description something along those lines? What
about the upcoming EDAM annotation of our tools? Are OMICtools and
bio.tools or what SciCrunch is doing a competition to appstream?

Anyway, definitely interesting to see this.

Best,

Steffen

Re: debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 07:45:23PM +0200, Steffen Möller a écrit :
> 
> In a direct email to Charles (asking if "Registry" was OK after becoming
> aware of the reserved keyword "Registration" with a different semantics,
> "Catalog" would be an alternative) I had raised the idea that we could
> possibly use the same concept to assign packages to task pages of any
> blend. This seems likely to simplify the packager's workflow since all
> information about the package is in the same place. 
> 
> The format could be
> 
>     Registry:
>    - Name: Blend
>   Entry: med/ngs

Hi Steffen and everybody,

sorry to be slow to answer !

I think that the format you propose is fine.

I wonder if this metadata would be even more useful via AppStream.  From
https://appstream.debian.org/:

AppStream is a cross-distro XML format to provide metadata for software
components and to assign unique identifiers to software.

Have a nice week-end,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

debian/upstream/metadata: registry item for the Blends' task pages?

[Steffen Möller]

Dear Andreas, dear Charles,

You know me adding references to RRID, bio.tools and OMICtools these
days. I am doing this for what I see currently active on the list
(usually too late for the upload) or for what is already checked out on
my laptop's hard drive. That done it will be about completing all tools
of  a CWL-implemented workflow that I like.

In a direct email to Charles (asking if "Registry" was OK after becoming
aware of the reserved keyword "Registration" with a different semantics,
"Catalog" would be an alternative) I had raised the idea that we could
possibly use the same concept to assign packages to task pages of any
blend. This seems likely to simplify the packager's workflow since all
information about the package is in the same place. 

The format could be

    Registry:
   - Name: Blend
  Entry: med/ngs

Just keep the idea spinning for a while.

Best,

Steffen