Hi, Andreas Tille schrieb: > Steffen Möller decided to mention only autodocktools in our tasks > files which > create meta package depenendencies. This implicitely installs several > mgltools-* packages via the depencencies of autodocktools. This is fine > if we only consider the med-bio package as result of the information > inside > the tasks files. > > But recently some other tools were developed which use the tasks file as > a source of information as well and currently these tools just ignore all > mgltools-* packages because they are not mentioned in the tasks files. > So I would like to hear your opinion about what should happen in the > following use cases of the tasks files: > > 1. Web tasks pages: > Does it makes sense / would it harm the tasks pages if all the > mgltools would be listed there (either in bio or bio-dev task)? no, it would not, imho. it would be similar to listing all applications in EMBOSS. > > 2. Bugs pages: > The pages should be really watched here (either in task bio or > bio-dev) and probably in the status "Depends" because a dependent > package depends on them. This is a good point. One should definitely learn about bugs being assigned to them. > 3. QA overview[3]: > The packages should be listed really in either bio or bio-dev > section instead under "non-free". Right. > > If the question 1 (tasks pages) would be answered with: "Yes, it makes > sense to list mgltools-* packages as *Depends*" every other issue is > solved. There is no practical change inside the metapackage med-bio > because the effect whether it depends directly or indirectly from the > packages in question would be the same. > > If question 1 is answered with: "No, these packages would just spoil our > task list and also do not belong to the bio-dev task" we might need an > extra field which indicates packages that should be listed on the bugs > pages and QA pages but not on the tasks page. This extra feature for > the webtools stuff is not really hard to implement - but we should just > discuss whether this is a feature we really need. I am not sure myself how this should be handled. An option "hide" might indeed be helpful. It could take "overview", "bugs", "qa" as arguments. > So what solution would you prefer to be able to keep an eye on these > mgltools packages? I'd opt for the listing of the packages in the tasks list and the introduction of a "hide" attribute. I'll go for an update of that packages any time soon, btw. Are there any autodockers on this list, btw?
Best, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
