[Debian-med-packaging] Comments regarding profnet_1.0.20-1_amd64.changes

[Laszlo Kajan]

Dear Luca,

thank you very much for you advice. Then this is what I am going to do with Steffen's help:

* I am going to prepare all the packages for protein secondary structure prediction - part of this is profnet with two of its binary packages 
(profnet-prof and profphd-net). We are then going to upload the whole set with additional notes to help the review process.

Hmm, perhaps we should - as long as they are not needed because of a lack of dependent packages - remove those binary packages from profnet that 
do not yet have a dependent package (the one they recommend). This should make profnet look a lot less confusing.

Please allow us a little time to prepare the other packages - I expect by the end of next week we should be ready to upload them.

Best regards,

Laszlo Kajan

On 18/06/11 10:51, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Il 18/06/2011 09:53, Laszlo Kajan ha scritto:
>> thank you for reviewing this package.
>
> You're welcome.
>
>> Well, we have been debating what to do with my mentor, Steffen about
>> this, whether to prepare all the packages first and upload them all, or
>> begin with this and proceed with the others that are recommended by this
>> later. Steffen said to proceed with this and add later the others in
>> order to not overload the ftpmasters with a big wave of packages. So our
>> plan is to proceed now and also upload all those packages that are
>> recommended here.
>
> It's not a big issue for FTP team to process a bunch of packages, it
> becomes harder when they are entangled one another (i.e. foo depends on
> bar, which depends on baz, which depends on foo).
>
>> Please tell us what we should do?:
>>
>> * upload all packages together that make up a working software component
>> (say 'protein secondary structure predictor') - or -
>>
>> * proceed uploading one package at a time but consequently have packages
>> that do not make much sense on their own at times
>
> I'd go for a mid-way between the two solutions. If you uploaded a
> minimum set of packages needed for profnet to be usable, providing us a
> little guidance about their priority (i.e. process foo, then process
> bar, then process baz in this strict order), it would ease the job.
>