[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#761942: [RFR] templates://arb/{arb-common.templates}

[Justin B Rye]

Elmar Pruesse wrote:
> DebConf Template:
> 
> "PT server" is probably best regarded as a name. It's meaning to the
> user community is really "something I need to do my analysis".
> 
> Technically, it is essentially a search engine for DNA sequence data.
> The acronym "PT" is historical and spells indeed "positional tree" or
> "prefix tree". Today the data structure is known as "suffix trie". Due
> to the lengthy index computation process and the high memory
> requirements, the engine runs as a "server process" in the background.
> Launch, termination and index calculation are managed from within ARB.
> For this, several "slots" comprising a location for index data and a
> socket (unix or tcp, optionally remote) can be configured in
> arb_tcp.dat. These slots are presented in the GUI and are what the users
> see as "PT server".
> 
> The users do not distinguish between the program, the running instance,
> the configuration slot or the index data. I believe the least confusing
> description in the template would be "PT server slot", perhaps with
> quotes around "PT server".

So expanding the abbreviation is likely to confuse rather than
enlighten?  Okay.

[...]
>> The part I don't understand is, does this really mean to say that ARB
>> will constantly run 3 communal PT-servers *plus* 3n private servers
>> where n equals the total number of local users on the system? [...]
>
> Prior to ARB 6.0, the administrator would configure one or more "server
> slots" for each user on specific TCP ports. As of 6.0, three slots are
> configured to use Unix sockets and data locations within the users home
> directory. They are only launched upon user request and terminated when
> ARB is closed.

So it's not launching 3n+3 servers; it's 3 types of "communal" access,
plus 3 types of "private" access.  That makes more sense, though I
wish I could think of a way of describing it that made it sound
straightforward!

> Package description:
> The text is perhaps too broken to fix by changing just a bit of the
> wording. If this is acceptable to you, I would prefer to take a day to
> compose a rewrite that is more to the point and post it for review here.
> (And, if you don't mind, I'd then use it upstream as well.)

Oh, okay, I can slow down a bit...
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package