Re: Please allow latest qtl to be part of lenny

[Charles Plessy]

> Luk Claes wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, too much to review, not unblocked. If an outdated version is not
> > really useful, it might be better to not include the package into a
> > stable release and provide backports?

Le Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:24:42PM +0200, Steffen Moeller a écrit :
> 
> Wether you call it backports or volatile, you are suggesting to split
> Debian-Med and Debian-Science from the main distribution, something that
> we are all strongly working against, in order to strengthen the distribution
> as a whole. I am CCing to Debian-Med to hear what they say. My personal 
> opinion
> is to just go for it because it is where the field is. Should the field be 
> doing
> crap, then so be it, it is not Debian's fault. Since R-qtl is an R package,
> it cannot do any damage to Debian as a whole and render stable unstable
> in any way.

Hi all,

I agree with the implicit opinion of Steffen that teams should be given
more responsability for "leaf packages", but anyway, we are so close to
the release that it is not the best time to discuss how to acheive this
empowerment. When backports will be an official Debian service, it may
make more sense to release most scientific packages only as backports.
This would decrease the workload of both teams, while keeping the Debian
Med a 100 % Debian project.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Please allow latest qtl to be part of lenny

[Steffen Moeller]

Hi Luk,

Luk Claes wrote:
> Steffen Moeller wrote:
>> === qtl:
>> = No migration to testing for 27 days.
>>   See 
>>
>> It has a series of important fixes and particularly to the scientists,
>> the core QTL user group, the outdated version would be mostly useless.
> 
> 88 files changed, 3174 insertions(+), 494 deletions(-)
> 
> Sorry, too much to review, not unblocked. If an outdated version is not
> really useful, it might be better to not include the package into a
> stable release and provide backports?

Hm. Interesting thought. I don't want to invest extra time over the regular
maintenance of the package, which excludes the backports route to my
understanding. Real scientists use testing or unstable anyway, I tend to say,
for exactly this reason. R/qtl is at the brink of current scientific
developments. So maybe you are right in suggesting to remove anything
that is intrinsically not stable from stable. Maybe it should go into
volatile, instead.

Wether you call it backports or volatile, you are suggesting to split
Debian-Med and Debian-Science from the main distribution, something that
we are all strongly working against, in order to strengthen the distribution
as a whole. I am CCing to Debian-Med to hear what they say. My personal opinion
is to just go for it because it is where the field is. Should the field be doing
crap, then so be it, it is not Debian's fault. Since R-qtl is an R package,
it cannot do any damage to Debian as a whole and render stable unstable
in any way.

Cheers,

Steffen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Please allow latest qtl to be part of lenny

[Luk Claes]

Steffen Moeller wrote:
> === qtl:
> = No migration to testing for 27 days.
>   See 
> 
> It has a series of important fixes and particularly to the scientists,
> the core QTL user group, the outdated version would be mostly useless.

88 files changed, 3174 insertions(+), 494 deletions(-)

Sorry, too much to review, not unblocked. If an outdated version is not
really useful, it might be better to not include the package into a
stable release and provide backports?

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please allow latest qtl to be part of lenny

[Steffen Moeller]

=== qtl:
= No migration to testing for 27 days.
  See 

It has a series of important fixes and particularly to the scientists,
the core QTL user group, the outdated version would be mostly useless.

Cheers,

Steffen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]