Re: dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:39:15AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > > I would be happy to move it to salsa. I just pointed to it as the one > > > we currently use > > > I guess I would then move it to dcm2niix-epoch1 smth like that (on salsa > > > i.e.) so previous versions could be found from the original > > > dcm2niix repo (to which I would also add a commit obliterating > > > everything and stating to look into that -epoch1 repo) > > Please use the original packaging work on salsa and keep the history intact. > > I don't see what would prevent you from rebasing the work done on > > Neurodebian on top of mine. Epoch bumps don't justify history rewrites or > > new repositories, imo. > I agree with Ghislain. Feel free to simply rebase your packaging but > please keep the same repository name. We have the policy that the > package resides in a repository with the same name as the source package > (and some of our tools are relying on this) and I do not see any reason > to diverge from it. There is also no point in keeping an unused > repository of the old packaging around. I am still wondering what I should do about dcm_qa* submodules. I keep thinking about making a dedicated package (dcm2niix-qa) shipping them. Without that, I could of cause bring (merge) upstream git tree into your packaging repo, with all the submodules, but that would "ruin" the clean history it has now. I would not be able just to "rebase" my packaging on top without a merge if I am to bring submodules. Meanwhile, pushed my adjusted neurodebian packaging to http://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix debian branch, which AFAIK should be good to go as long as we figure out dcm_qa* situation. Will do a full sweep of builds and if all is good, upload to NeuroDebian interim -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Re: dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:39:15AM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > I would be happy to move it to salsa. I just pointed to it as the one > > we currently use > > > > I guess I would then move it to dcm2niix-epoch1 smth like that (on salsa > > i.e.) so previous versions could be found from the original > > dcm2niix repo (to which I would also add a commit obliterating > > everything and stating to look into that -epoch1 repo) > > > > Please use the original packaging work on salsa and keep the history intact. > > I don't see what would prevent you from rebasing the work done on > Neurodebian on top of mine. Epoch bumps don't justify history rewrites or > new repositories, imo. I agree with Ghislain. Feel free to simply rebase your packaging but please keep the same repository name. We have the policy that the package resides in a repository with the same name as the source package (and some of our tools are relying on this) and I do not see any reason to diverge from it. There is also no point in keeping an unused repository of the old packaging around. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?
Le lun. 3 déc. 2018 à 22:39, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit : > > On Mon, 03 Dec 2018, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Hi Yaroslav, > > > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:36:19PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > > > Chris asked me to take over maintenance in Debian as well, and Ghislain > > > blessed me as well. > > > Fine for me. > > > > To minimize amount of work for myself, I would like > > > to continue with NeuroDebian packaging, just polishing it up (copyright > > > file and may be some cleanup). How NeuroDebian packaging is > > > different (dropping historical perspective) ATM it is at > > > http://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix > > > Please do not do this. The development platform for Debian packages is > > salsa.debian.org and *lots* of QA tools are relying to find the > packaging > > code here. I do not mind about the team but I mind a lot about the host > > any Blends package can be found. > > I would be happy to move it to salsa. I just pointed to it as the one > we currently use > > I guess I would then move it to dcm2niix-epoch1 smth like that (on salsa > i.e.) so previous versions could be found from the original > dcm2niix repo (to which I would also add a commit obliterating > everything and stating to look into that -epoch1 repo) > Please use the original packaging work on salsa and keep the history intact. I don't see what would prevent you from rebasing the work done on Neurodebian on top of mine. Epoch bumps don't justify history rewrites or new repositories, imo. Unless I misunderstood your intent. It's not 100% clear to me. > > > > - main difference is our git repo sitting on top of the upstream so we > > > also can produce an .orig. tarball with dcm_qa submodule which > > > provides data for testing of correct operation. That increases the > > > tarball size but IMHO it is worth it! > > > I do not mind about the tarball size. > > I also didn't but current one (280MB) made me think... not sure yet what > thoughts it would give ;) > > > > ... removed all agreeed upon ... > > > > Please let me know what you think > > > All those packaging details sound sensible but please, pretty > > please stick to salsa.d.o. > > sure > > > Thank you for your work on this package > > Cheers! > -- > Yaroslav O. Halchenko > Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org > Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 > Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 > WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik > >
Re: dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Yaroslav, > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:36:19PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > Chris asked me to take over maintenance in Debian as well, and Ghislain > > blessed me as well. > Fine for me. > > To minimize amount of work for myself, I would like > > to continue with NeuroDebian packaging, just polishing it up (copyright > > file and may be some cleanup). How NeuroDebian packaging is > > different (dropping historical perspective) ATM it is at > > http://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix > Please do not do this. The development platform for Debian packages is > salsa.debian.org and *lots* of QA tools are relying to find the packaging > code here. I do not mind about the team but I mind a lot about the host > any Blends package can be found. I would be happy to move it to salsa. I just pointed to it as the one we currently use I guess I would then move it to dcm2niix-epoch1 smth like that (on salsa i.e.) so previous versions could be found from the original dcm2niix repo (to which I would also add a commit obliterating everything and stating to look into that -epoch1 repo) > > - main difference is our git repo sitting on top of the upstream so we > > also can produce an .orig. tarball with dcm_qa submodule which > > provides data for testing of correct operation. That increases the > > tarball size but IMHO it is worth it! > I do not mind about the tarball size. I also didn't but current one (280MB) made me think... not sure yet what thoughts it would give ;) > > ... removed all agreeed upon ... > > Please let me know what you think > All those packaging details sound sensible but please, pretty > please stick to salsa.d.o. sure > Thank you for your work on this package Cheers! -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Re: dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?
Hi Yaroslav, On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:36:19PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > Chris asked me to take over maintenance in Debian as well, and Ghislain > blessed me as well. Fine for me. > To minimize amount of work for myself, I would like > to continue with NeuroDebian packaging, just polishing it up (copyright > file and may be some cleanup). How NeuroDebian packaging is > different (dropping historical perspective) ATM it is at > http://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix Please do not do this. The development platform for Debian packages is salsa.debian.org and *lots* of QA tools are relying to find the packaging code here. I do not mind about the team but I mind a lot about the host any Blends package can be found. > - main difference is our git repo sitting on top of the upstream so we > also can produce an .orig. tarball with dcm_qa submodule which > provides data for testing of correct operation. That increases the > tarball size but IMHO it is worth it! I do not mind about the tarball size. > - we run (build-time only ATM) tests using that dcm_qa/ data. That > already allowed to iron out differences in behavior between i386 and > amd64. > > I expect though that testing for all the other platforms would open a > huge can of worms. But I think it would be beneficial in the long > run to name them all ;) I bet Chris (the upstream) would be > "thrilled" to help nailing them down > > any objections on relying on gbp to produce orig source tarballs? > > - in a rush toward "let's converge packaging" I have added needed then > epoch 1: to the versioning.It would need to "propagate" into > Debian. I hope that is ok We all know epochs are ugly but sometimes needed. > - we still use debhelper 9 for maximal ease of backportability. > > any objections? No. > - we do carry a few patches > https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix/tree/debian/debian/patches > including patches for the packaging backports on elderly jessie (and > equally old ubuntus) > > https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix/blob/debian/debian/patches/jessie-dsc-patch > probably some symlinks for really old /EOLed ubuntus could be removed, > will do now > > But any objections against carrying backport patches? No. > Please let me know what you think All those packaging details sound sensible but please, pretty please stick to salsa.d.o. Thank you for your work on this package Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
dcm2niix -- I have an intent to take over (still under Debian Med team), objections?
Dear Team Comrades, Upon blessing from Ghislain Antony Vaillant (previous team maintainer) and Chris Rorden (upstream, CCed) I would like to take over the maintenance of dcm2niix. And I would like to do it largely by taking the dcm2niix packaging setup we have in NeuroDebian. bits of history - we have initially packaged dcm2niix long ago (Sep 2015) but forgot to file an ITP because there were a number of outstanding license issues to be resolved before considering for "Debian proper". - Rightfully so, without seeing an ITP, Ghislain provided separate packaging in Dec 2016. - I don't remember at which stage licensing issues got resolved ;) and that is when I realized that there is already a package in Debian. so we started to talk with Ghislain in Jan 2017 about possibly merging the effort, but never converged. Chris asked me to take over maintenance in Debian as well, and Ghislain blessed me as well. To minimize amount of work for myself, I would like to continue with NeuroDebian packaging, just polishing it up (copyright file and may be some cleanup). How NeuroDebian packaging is different (dropping historical perspective) ATM it is at http://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix - main difference is our git repo sitting on top of the upstream so we also can produce an .orig. tarball with dcm_qa submodule which provides data for testing of correct operation. That increases the tarball size but IMHO it is worth it! - we run (build-time only ATM) tests using that dcm_qa/ data. That already allowed to iron out differences in behavior between i386 and amd64. I expect though that testing for all the other platforms would open a huge can of worms. But I think it would be beneficial in the long run to name them all ;) I bet Chris (the upstream) would be "thrilled" to help nailing them down any objections on relying on gbp to produce orig source tarballs? - in a rush toward "let's converge packaging" I have added needed then epoch 1: to the versioning.It would need to "propagate" into Debian. I hope that is ok - we still use debhelper 9 for maximal ease of backportability. any objections? - we do carry a few patches https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix/tree/debian/debian/patches including patches for the packaging backports on elderly jessie (and equally old ubuntus) https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix/blob/debian/debian/patches/jessie-dsc-patch probably some symlinks for really old /EOLed ubuntus could be removed, will do now But any objections against carrying backport patches? Please let me know what you think -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
