[Debian-med-packaging] Mgltools are escaping our sentinel (Was: Bug#592417: marked as done)

[Steffen Möller]

Hello,

On 12/06/2010 10:58 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:

> thanks to Steve we finally have a problem fixed which nearly had kicked
> out a package out of Debian (see #605315).  At first thanks to Steve to
> step in for the team.

right, many thanks for everything that is spotted.

> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 05:06:03AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> ...
>> Maintainer: Debian Med Packaging Team <debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org>
>> Changed-By: Steve M. Robbins <smr at debian.org>
>> Description: 
>>  mgltools-utpackages - UT Austin software Python extensions
>> Closes: 592417 605315
>> Changes: 
>>  mgltools-utpackages (1.5.4.cvs.20100912-1.1) unstable; urgency=low
>>  .
>>    * Non-Maintainer Upload.  Closes: #605315.
>>  .
>>    * setup.py: Apply patch from Tim Retout.  Closes: #592417.
> 
> I wonder how we can prevent such problems in the future.  IMHO one
> problem is that all the mgltools packages are hidden from all our
> sentinels because they are not mentioned in the tasks files.  I once
> talked with Steffen about this but he thinks they should not be
> mentioned there.  (I do not remember the reasons any more but I
> remember that I was not convinced but trusted him as the maintainer
> and user of these packages.)

The reason is that those packages are perceived as one inseparable
thing by the user. Only for programmers the distinction makes some
sense and some fraction of the mgltools, like -vision, only use
some fraction of the modules.

Another issue is that the mgltools-X packages in part should just
be renamed to python-X, since those are just swig wrappers around
some C libraries. So I am not completely convinced that everthing
should stay as it is for long but I do not have the time for
everything.

I personally started to doubt that we really need the mgltools with us.
If it was used more frequently, then we would have seen more complaints.
My local setup worked for me, otherwise I would have spotted the
issue myself earlier.

>   3. Use Enhances:
> 
>      This was just discussed on Debian Med list[1] and Debian Devel
>      list[2] and is IMHO exactly what reflects the context of these
>      packages and once this is used consistently we could adapt the
>      bug pages according to the Enhances fields of they are really
>      used as intended.
> 
> I would like to discuss means to enable us effectively watching our
> packages and I wonder what method you would like to see implemented.  I
> I have a clear preference for 3. because it fits the content and uses
> uses an available (but rarely used and known) method.

We can discuss this in January and start experimenting with it.

Best,

Steffen