Re: Validating debian/upstream/metadata for debian-med projects
Hi Andreas, Nilesh & Steffen,
Thanks a lot for your feedback! I completely agree with Andreas about
the assignment lintian message levels (error/warning etc) for issue
categories 1-3.
On 2021-02-11 15:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:16:51PM +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote:>> 4. E-mail addresses in Bug-Submit (htslib, last-align, nanook, just to
>> name a few). Per [3], values of Bug-Submit are URLs. Maybe [3] could be
>> amended to cover e-mails too?
>
> Its sensible to permit e-mails here since this is something where some
> bugs need to be submitted. May be enforcing mailto:e@mail makes a proper
> URL?
Indeed, mailto: is a proper way to represent e-mail addresses in URLs,
thus these cases could be reworked without changing [3].
>> 5. Unclear scalar/list status of some fields. Only Screenshots is
>> defined as "One or more URLs", while in reality lists appear for
>> Webservice (clustalw, primer3), Bug-Submit (mira, albeit seems broken).
>> Maybe these too could be defined as "One or more URLs"?
>
> I have not thought about this but if there are obvious use cases for
> lists it seems to be sensible to permit this.
I think for the time being these could be reported as lintian 'pedantic'
level messages, but still have their contents validated. If we see
extensive use of lists (for example in debian-science or other groups),
this will be a clear sign of the need to specify more than one item.
>> 6. Empty templates (agat, intake, libpll-2, just to name a few). I would
>> suggest removing the templates, as they do not carry anything meaningful.
>
> That's at least worth a warning - may be even an error.
I agree. For example, debhelper templates are reported as errors most of
the time, and this case seems similar to me.
>> 7. DOIs written as URLs (fast, libnewuoa). This is debatable, and [5]
>> does not talk about DOIs at all.
>
> DOI is specified[6] and should not be an URL (I've just fixed libnewuoa
> once I was checking it ... but leave fast to keep some "example" for
> testing for you ;-) )
Good - I had a feeling that DOIs should not be URLs, but could not back
that up with evidence. Now I found that official "DOI Handbook" [7]
recommends plain DOIs, even without 'doi:' when it can be unambiguously
inferred from the context (our case).
> Your work (including critique as far as it concerns me) is perfectly
> welcome and absolutely needed. I can't count any more how often I
> needed to adapt the UDD gatherer for upstream metadata to be tolerant
> against different kind of syntax issues.
I can imagine that! I think lintian could perform that quality control here.
> The lintian check should also verify typos in field names. Only
> those fields that are specified[3] are permitted.
Good point! Will do that.
>> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2021/01/msg00050.html
>> [2] https://github.com/merkys/Debian-DEP12, no stable release yet
>> [3] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata
>> [4] https://yaml-multiline.info/
>> [5]
>> https://mirror.datacenter.by/pub/mirrors/CTAN/biblio/bibtex/base/btxdoc.pdf
>
> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier
[7] https://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/2_Numbering.html#2.6.1
Best,
Andrius
Reply to: