[Neurodebian-devel] Neurodebian tasks (and Debian Science)

[Michael Hanke]

Hey,

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ole Streicher <olebole at debian.org> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> On 06.04.2016 14:36, Michael Hanke wrote:
> >> Some Fields in neurodebian seem not to have 1:1 tasks in
> >> debian-science: [...]
> > Any discrepancy should be in favor of the non-neurodebian tasks,
> > everything else is an ommision/bug in our side.
>
> >> The debian-science task "science-neuroscience-congnitive" has no
> >> corresponding "field" in neurodebian, but seems to belong there.
> > Again, a core debian target is preferred, hence this is a non-issue
> > from my PoV.
>
> I must say that I didn't fully understand that. From your point of view,
> Who actually shall feel responsible) for these tasks? NeuroDebian? Do
> you say that these Debian tasks are the reference, and if NeuroDebian
> does not match it is a bug in NeuroDebian but not in Debian? This is at
> least how I did understand you; please correct me if I am wrong.
>

Yes, you got it right. Debian science is the reference. Anybody who cares
should rightfully feel responsible.

>> Wouldn't it make sense to move out the specific tasks
> >> (science-electrophysiology. science-neuroscience-modelling,
> >> science-neuroscience-datasets, science-psychophysics, and
> >> science-neuroscience-congnitive) into the "neurodebian" package
> >> (and remove it from debian-science)?
>
> > If somebody does that and it doesn't imply a future increase in
> > perceived responsibility of "NeuroDebian" to maintain this former
> > debian-science task -- I am all for it.
>
> The question here is (also) about responsibility. I guess you already
> feel responsible for them, since you maintain, or "tag" them on your web
> site already? Then it would IMO make perfect sense to extract them to a
> separate package (resp. to the existing "neurodebian" package),
> maintained by NeuroDebian.
>
> > I am not convinced that the "install all at once" approach is an
> > actual selling point for a real user (NeuroDebian users that is).
>
> You already do this for your VMs, right? If you were not convinced, you
> would not offer those ;-)
>

No we don't. Our VM is a very minimal image that allows people to quickly
install things, but does nothing else.

> I personally consider the task association as a "tag", no more. And
> > I do mostly care about the second part of
> > "science-neuroscience-cognitive" (neuroscience-cognitive), and much
> > less about the prefix -- unless it is obscene ;-)
>
> So, let's omit the prefix completely :-)
>
> > But again, if this leads to the collateral damage that people are
> > less likely to touch the task file because of this change of the
> > umbrella from science (general) to neurodebian (less general), this
> > would be a cost that I'd hate to pay.
>
> Browsing the logs, these tasks are mainly unchanged in the last years.
> There were some changes 2 years ago by Andreas Tille and by Yaroslav,
> but after then they are unchanged. Therefore, I would rate the risk
> higher that these tasks become unmaintained. A move to the neurodebian
> package would IMO a step forward. If you generate them from tags, that's
> perfect, it would keep them synchronous to your web site.
>

No we don't generate the tasks from tags, the tags a generated from the
tasks.

Michael


-- 
Michael Hanke
http://mih.voxindeserto.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/neurodebian-devel/attachments/20160406/e9c092e3/attachment.html>