Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-31 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:10:53AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > When looking briefly at the code seems the "spacy" package names > ("ncbi-blast ", "feel ", "gtk 3.0", "getfem ") will also end up > in the umegaya database itself because you are using $package as > key. Can you verify this?

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-29 Thread Andreas Tille
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:51:51PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > What if you want to have different publication data for different binary > packages, or exclude some binary packages from publication data? > > Point in case would be openbabel, where the python bindings had a > dedicated publication

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-29 Thread Michael Banck
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:55:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > The names in packages-metadata should be source package names, and I have > > improperly used binary package names when parsing the blends task files. > > > > One mo

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-29 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:55:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > The names in packages-metadata should be source package names, and I have > > improperly used binary package names when parsing the blends task files. > > > > One

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-29 Thread Andreas Tille
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:55:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > The names in packages-metadata should be source package names, and I have > improperly used binary package names when parsing the blends task files. > > One more item to add the TODO list... I found another instance (besides probab

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-28 Thread Andreas Tille
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:55:42PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > The files q/qtl.* are outdated and I can not see how we can make them > > vanish. > > Oops, that is a bug. > > The names in packages-metadata should be source package names, and I have > improperly used binary package names when

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-27 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:36:02AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > After todays checkout at least those fixes I pushed yesterday where in. The > only thing I'm curious about is: > > $ find packages-metadata -name "*qtl.*" | grep -v 'svn/' > packages-metadata/r/r-cran-qtl.upstream > packages-

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-27 Thread Andreas Tille
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:30:59AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > All of this is complicated and will be un-necessary once I have corrected the > bugs that lead to created the bogus files. If you prefer, please just ping me > once you finished your corrections, and I will push the update After

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-27 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:57:30PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > I moved your suggested Definition of the Reference field to the Wiki and > added the keys of the mapping (basically leaving out the "Reference-"). > I would suggest to call "Reference-" from the list of supported > fields. Is

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-27 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:17:07PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I agree with your propositions, but I would like to remind that roughly you an > me contribute the most to the upstream files, so let's agree that we can > revert > changes in a later phase where we have extended feedback. As

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-20 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 01:32:27PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > So we should go on with specifying it and I guess with this specification you > mean describing it at > > http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata Hi Andreas, I agree with your propositions, but I would like to remind that

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-20 Thread Andreas Tille
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:18:06AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > "Reference" is not a field in the current specification. I think that this > illustrates well the current confusion about the format. In that sense, it is > not possible to answer to your question of what breaks by using nested

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-16 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > I took the "Reference" field for granted because it was used heavily in > practice. Hi Andreas, "Reference" is not a field in the current specification. I think that this illustrates well the current confusion about the forma

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-13 Thread Andreas Tille
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:41:09AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I did not have time to read the rest, but I just checked the Git repository > and > I do not see your changes. Sorry, writing mail *and* commiting stuff made me forgetting `git push`. This weak is a bit short on time ... > It see

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-12 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > I pushed the preliminary + untested code into > > git://git.debian.org/git/users/plessy/umegaya.git Hi Andreas, I did not have time to read the rest, but I just checked the Git repository and I do not see your changes. It

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-12 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Charles, just a short notice because I was quite occupied today! On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:33:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > According to http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata, the two following > files would be equivalent: > > --- > Reference-PMID: 19854763 > Contact: Manolo Gouy >

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-11 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 03:04:49PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > Hi Charles, > > I'm very sorry that my work caused frustration on your side. This was > absolutely not intended. I strongly believed I would work on the same > goal as you and following your plan. Obviosely e-mails do not work

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-11 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Charles, I'm very sorry that my work caused frustration on your side. This was absolutely not intended. I strongly believed I would work on the same goal as you and following your plan. Obviosely e-mails do not work out as deescalation means and so I'm for the moment delaying my answer. The

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-11 Thread Charles Plessy
Hi again, I am really frustrated. You pointed at problems, I worked to solve them, and now you come again and again with the same story that the system is not reliable. Please remember that 1) the bugs you report can be fixed and 2) no program is ever prefect from the first release. It is the s

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-11 Thread Andreas Tille
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:42:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > in the first round where I wrote the UDD importer you accepted the format I > proposed. Writing this importer by myself took me countless hours, as I did > not know Python programming, and as the handling of Unicode in the UDD was n

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-10 Thread Charles Plessy
Hi Andreas, in the first round where I wrote the UDD importer you accepted the format I proposed. Writing this importer by myself took me countless hours, as I did not know Python programming, and as the handling of Unicode in the UDD was not so intuitive. Then you found bugs and decided to thro

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-10 Thread Andreas Tille
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:37:43PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I agreed to provide flat files in a way that they can be parsed by anybody, > because I agree that such a repository has some value, especially since it > includes the copyright files as well. Fully ACK. > But for feeding the UDD w

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-09 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:51:45AM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > Ups, seems there is some misscommunication? I simply assumed it would > have been the agreement that you would provide the upstream files that > way and I volunteered to parse them for UDD. Hi Andreas, I agreed to provide fla

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-09 Thread Andreas Tille
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:33:29AM +0100, Olivier Sallou wrote: > Just a short question regarding this job. > I followed quickly the mails regarding this task but what I'd like to > know is where will appear the bibtex/citation when everything is done? My main goal is to replace the citation infor

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-09 Thread Olivier Sallou
Just a short question regarding this job. I followed quickly the mails regarding this task but what I'd like to know is where will appear the bibtex/citation when everything is done? Thanks Olivier -- gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-09 Thread Andreas Tille
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:37:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I think that we need to discuss the general syntax of the file. > > Initially, I thought it as limited to "name: value" fields like in Debian > control > data files. Then after adding many Reference-* fields, I found that syntax >

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-08 Thread Andreas Tille
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:06:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > On my side I made a first push to the collab-qa Subversion repository. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ Great. > Still, I am disappointed that you ignore the rest of my work. I spent a lot > of

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-08 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:06:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > For adding a rank to the references, this may be a good idea, but how do you > propose to implement this in YAML ? Perhaps it would be simpler to keep > a single reference broken in YAML fields as it is now, and dump the rest

Re: Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-08 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:03:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > I just want to let you know that I wrote some code to parse upstream > files stored in the proposed directory layout and move references into a > UDD table featuring a "rank" column - so at least we can store more than > one ref

Status bibref gatherer (Was: Tasks pages (close to) fixed; Bibref does not seem to be updated automatically)

2012-03-08 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > May be I'm doing some to strong simplification - I just wanted to save > time and kept it short. But as I said we can work on the collecting > upstream files completely independently from the task to import those > files into UD