Advice/Opinions regarding shovill

2022-03-10 Thread Nilesh Patra
I had packaged shovill, which is a workflow package
roughly two years ago. However, pretty soon I had realised,
for every analysis you want to do, you need to _manually_ modify the
bin/shovill file[1]

Since in debian, it is in /usr/bin/shovill, you need to be modifying that file
for each and every analysis when you want to change the adapter file.
Since that is ugly, I had written code for
a command line option that circumvents this manual modification and sent a PR
upstream[2]

Since we want to be inlined with what upstream is doing, I did not change it in 
debian
package as that would mean diverging from there. I even after pinging several 
times, only
to realise that upstream simply ignored it.

And so, since this package is not properly usable (without root permissions) I 
am planning
ahead to merge this cli opt feature in the debian package anyway and upload, 
mentioning
this in d/NEWS that we are different in this aspect.

Do you think this is fine or would you have any better suggestions?
Also, do you think it makes sense to upload this also in stable-p-u?

Let me know.

Regards,
Nilesh

[1]: https://github.com/tseemann/shovill/tree/master/bin
[2]: https://github.com/tseemann/shovill/pull/147


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Advice/Opinions regarding shovill

2022-03-10 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Nilesh,

Am Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:17:51PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> I had packaged shovill, which is a workflow package
> roughly two years ago. However, pretty soon I had realised,
> for every analysis you want to do, you need to _manually_ modify the
> bin/shovill file[1]
> 
> Since in debian, it is in /usr/bin/shovill, you need to be modifying that file
> for each and every analysis when you want to change the adapter file.
> Since that is ugly, I had written code for
> a command line option that circumvents this manual modification and sent a PR
> upstream[2]

Thanks a lot for your effort.

> Since we want to be inlined with what upstream is doing, I did not change it 
> in debian
> package as that would mean diverging from there. I even after pinging several 
> times, only
> to realise that upstream simply ignored it.

That's a shame.  In many cases upstream is happy about enhancements,
specifically if suggested as PR.

> And so, since this package is not properly usable (without root permissions) 
> I am planning
> ahead to merge this cli opt feature in the debian package anyway and upload, 
> mentioning
> this in d/NEWS that we are different in this aspect.
> 
> Do you think this is fine or would you have any better suggestions?

I have no better suggestion.  I guess its not the only package where we
have several enhancements over upstream even if I absolutely subscribe
that we should rather avoid it if possible.

> Also, do you think it makes sense to upload this also in stable-p-u?

This should be answered by a user of this package.

Kind regards

Andreas.

> [1]: https://github.com/tseemann/shovill/tree/master/bin
> [2]: https://github.com/tseemann/shovill/pull/147



-- 
http://fam-tille.de