Crossing debtags and popcon

[Andrea Bolognani]

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:11:00 +0000
Justin B Rye <jbr at edlug.org.uk> wrote:

> > Explain the need to tag every package in the New Maintainer's Guide. Add a
> > "should" in the Developer's Reference. Provide extensive documentation on
> > how to correctly tag a package, then add a lintian/linda check to make sure
> > most mentors won't sponsor untagged packages, or at least warn the
> > maintainer.
>
> In principle these are objectives we should be working towards, but
> pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for them to be realised.

I didn't say it would be easy or quick.

> > If you use Sarge,
>
> (Actually, my scenario was set after the Etch release.  Sarge
> debtags doesn't support online archives anyway.)

Ok, now I got it.
This is why I prefer to use the release's codename ;)

> The hard part is getting the right tags in the Packages file; if we
> could take those for granted, supplementary archives wouldn't be an
> issue.  For me as a Stable user, role::dummy would be right; but if
> the tags available in the Packages database mistakenly say that
> foo-media-player is role::special:todo, I'm stuck with a choice
> between that and the equally-wrong-for-Stable tags on alioth.

The problems in getting the Package file in sync will disappear as soon as
we get dpkg to support tags; the problem of having wrong tags in the Package
file is a different, harder to fix, one.

> >> Improved (and better-automated) coverage in the Packages file would
> >> be good; but I'm against having it entirely replace the online
> >> databases, because that would make things worse for my local users
> >> in two regards:
> >> * if the only way to correct a tag is to provide a well-formatted
> >> 	patch to the source tree, that's a barrier against
> >> 	contributions (especially from non-developers).
> >
> > Or to file a bug against the package having wrong tags.
>
> That _is_ filing a bug.  Wishlist bugs without a patch are much more
> likely to be ignored.

I was talking about wishlist bugs with a patch, of course.

> > Non-developers already do this for all other kinds of bugs -- and yes, I
> > consider wrong tags to be a bug in the package. At least a wishlist one.
>
> It's a barrier against contributions.  A tags-patch list of 100
> packages in need of the new works-with-format::mp4 tag is an
> enjoyable task for a teabreak, with near-immediate useful results;
> 100 wishlist bugreports to MIA maintainers is a wasted weekend.

This is in fact a problem.
A modified version of debtags-edit which is able to file bugs against the
packages instead of sending a patch to alioth would save you a lot of time,
but I agree ignored bugs are not that useful.

> >> * if there are no online archives, the only way to get corrected
> >> 	tags is via new package versions - and for Stable users,
> >> 	that means waiting years.  By which time foo-media-player
> >> 	may be role::dummy again.
> >
> > You should get the tags related to the version of the package you have
> > currently installed.
> >
> > If I have Sarge's foo-media-player installed, I want it to be tagged
> > role::dummy. I don't want it to appear in any search I perform against
> > works-with-format::whatever. That would be just wrong.
>
> You're assuming perfect tagging.  We don't have that, and I would be
> prepared to place a sizeable bet that we never will.

Perfection is just not belonging to this world, in tagging and everything else.
But as of now, the tags are in a good shape, and are IMHO "good enough" to be
useful. Obviously I'm talking only about already tagged packages.

> > My point is that having the right tags for a package is maintainer's duty,
> > just like it's maintainer's duty to make sure the package works correctly
> > and bugs are fixed.
[snip]
> > I know it is a very broad task, and it will require a lot of work, but I
> > think we can do this in time for lenny.
>
> You are an optimist.  I'm not even going to start hoping for this
> until we've had another round of fixes to the organisation of the
> vocabulary - your BTS-driven proposal would make it extremely
> arduous to modify the vocabulary and then re-tag the archive
> appropriately.  Even if we never plan to change the vocabulary
> again, that means we need to change it at least one more time to
> eliminate the ::TODO tags!

I'm still convinced that this is a temporary situation. Of course we are not
ready to work the way I'd want to *right now*. We still have a lot of
untagged packages, the vocabulary is still subject to big modifications.

What we should do right now is to increase the archive coverage, and the best
way to do this is using the web editor and the alioth database.

> If we can get the vocabulary frozen by Lenny (and I'm not sure we
> should, let alone could), then we can start debating the necessity
> for the online tag-submission system in Lenny+n; but in the
> meantime, there will be Stable users whose interests deserve some
> consideration.

If you can think of a good way of providing up-to-date and accurate tags for
etch users after etch is released, please do so, it's an important thing.

But you have to do this quickly, because etch is already frozen, and AFAICT
debtags-related software currently in etch is not able to handle this.
There's no point providing etch users with a good database, if they cannot
take advantage from it ;)

--
KiyuKo <eof AT kiyuko DOT org>
Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20070204/39a37d11/attachment-0001.pgp