On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:07:56PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > I certainly think this is a great goal, but I have some reservations > about the process. You are using debian/upstream, which in no way is in > some science-related namespace and appears to be for general-purpose > upstream metadata.
I admit that the current approach is a bit bottom-up. However, compared to having "nothing" in the package space this is some extra benefit. We started with the (also not longish discussed) Publication-* fields in the tasks files which turned out as not flexible enough. When working with the > 100 Reference entries in debian/upstream files I regard this way as pretty useful. We could also gather similar information like "Registration", "Donation", "Webservice" etc. - just have a general file to dump structured information into seems pretty reasonable to me and I see no reason to use some "science-related namespace" (which we also do not for any other metadata file - so why should we in this case). > Therefore, I think before wide adoption, this should > be discussed on debian-devel and/or be a DEP. I agree that a DEP seems to be some appropriate means to discuss this. > Presenting this as a fait accompli to -devel after x packages have been > converted might result in some irritation or confusion. What do you mean with "converted"? Converting from what? Did I missed some other means to specify references? > Possibly I have just missed that conversation though, so excuse me in > that case. The problem is that nobody is really willing to discuss those issues and most people simply throw ENOTIME. IMHO we just *should* take time for this but we all are free to decide where we will spend our time. Charles is fighting since years for establishing debian/upstream but I think that only a hand full of people realised this and finally support this. At DebConf 10 I also brought this into the Debian Science discussion which is documented in the Wiki[1]. I warmed this up in last years DebConf in the Debian Science BOF and sometimes here on the list (I guess if you seek for site:lists.debian.org/debian-sciende "http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/ProblemsToWorkOn"; you will get the relevant threads because I was always linking to this.) I have drawn the conclusion that discussion leads to plainly nothing and thus followed the Do-O-Cracy principle to just do something. I will join the discussion about this once there is a counter proposal which solves the problem better than debian/upstream. I also do not see a problem in converting the structured data from debian/upstream if something else might win in the discussion - and I volunteer to do the needed migration steps including possibly necessary manual work. I will not stop working just because people claim that we should discuss first and than nothing happens again. Currently in this regard there are the following items on my todo list: - Enable per binary package citations on tasks pages which could be controled by the field "Debian-package" (it has turned out that the query became to complex in the current UDD table layout and the field is currently ignored) - enable more than one citation per package on the tasks pages (might be another reason to change the table structure) - Enhance BibTeX output - Check regularly logfiles of UDD importer and websentinel for potential problems - Add a "reference of the day" to those Debian Med packages that are lacking this information I'd go much more into details / write better documentation in case somebody will join this work list. Please raise your hand if you see any conflict with an other existing effort or duplication of work to some extend or any other problem in this approach. Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/ProblemsToWorkOn -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
