I can only agree with Matus, this is a very nice and super motivating answer, thanks a lot! We'll investigate how all of that can be delivered in a near future hopefully :) Thanks, Hervé
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 5:28 PM Matus Kalas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Steffen and everyone, ^^ > > Giant thanks for your quick and enthusiastic answer! > > On 2020-11-11 16:59, Steffen Möller wrote: > > Hello Hervé, hello Matúš, > > > > On 11.11.20 16:36, Hervé Ménager wrote: > >> Hello Debian-ers, > >> We (ELIXIR Tools Platform) have been working a lot on the Tools > >> Platform lately. One of the major contributors is Debian Med, and > >> collecting the package metadata from you will soon enable: > >> - cross-linking between e.g. bio.tools and Debian Med packages > >> - cross-validation and enrichment of metadata. > > > > How cool is that! > > > > I just checked https://bio.tools/clustalo and found the "software > > package" link to Debian's tracker. Great! > > > >> Speaking of which, our current setup is very convenient for us: we can > >> update Debian metadata at any time, and use it to produce better tool > >> descriptions. *But*, one thing which is unclear is how we can > >> contribute back some metadata to your packages. Would there be any > >> kind of interest on your side in e.g. opening Merge Requests on salsa > >> when some metadata can use some update? If so, should our system open > >> these MRs automatically or semi-automatically (assuming we can define > >> precisely when a metadata difference mandates a correction on the > >> Debian side)? > > > > You personally have access to salsa.debian.org/med-team and can go for > > anything exceptional without further delay. > > > > You can also prepare and auto-prepare (!) pull requests of whatever > > nature these may be for all packages that are on salsa. > > > > For packages in Debian Med, fixing smallish bugs, like > > adding/correcting > > the bio.tools reference I think you can just do them. > > Great! > > We could correct the bio.tools reference for those tools|packages that > have a link to Debian's tracker, but those would expectedly have a valid > bio.tools ID in Debian already :) Or am I wrong? > > > A seed for the edam annotation would be good, which then the individual > > maintainers > > extend, by chance. > > This is an excellent idea! > > > I do not think I would in an automated way update > > package descriptions. And the URLs should also be checked manually. > > Even > > if you have the correct newer one, the one that is listed is likely the > > one where the software was downloaded from and it identifies the > > sources, too. > > Hmm, good points. > > Maybe we'll have to be a bit careful about the versions of the source > pkg in Debian and those that a particular bio.tools record is valid for > (N.B. such annotation is optional in bio.tools). Such check, where > possible, may apply to generating the edam seed, too. > > > More important in that respect is that the debian/watch > > file is updated so the maintainer is informed about the updates. > > Ok, thanks for the reminder, I see this is crucial. > > > > > As a start, I think a mere web page with lists of changes that you want > > to feed back would be nice so we can think along. > > Indeed, I think this is the way to start, before we dive into complex > functionality. > > > > > Thank you both! > > > > Steffen (has added/updated already three bio.tools references today :o) > > ) > > So super cool, first place medal Steffen! > > Thanks so much, > Matus > >
