Hi, Le Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 03:43:15PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels écrivait: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Laurent Fousse wrote: > > > Are you still interested in adopting megahal? I'm not a debian > > developper but I'm also interested in the package. > > > Yes, I've been working on it off and on for the last month.
Nice. > > Thanks to David I'm also involved upstream, my changes should be > > commited in cvs soon. I've asked debian-qa if someone wants to upload > > my package. > > > Likewise, David added me to upstream, but set my role as packager... > > In http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=183197 > martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> offered to sponsor the package. The > only requirement left that he wants is for the source package to be pgp > signed. My key is on my broken home machine. I've been doing development > work on my work machine... Ok. > > If you like we can try to work together, merge our work if you have > > something ready as well. > > > I'd love to work together on this. I don't have much to merge though. My > approach was/is much more conservative than yours, far less detailed too. I'll try to clean my changes a bit (the package was a native source package with no diff, but I'll try to split the upstream part and the debian part). > > My package is available here: > > > > http://komite.net/laurent/debian/megahal/ > > > > The python and the perl library need beta-testing, and we should add a > > C library (closing #107318). > > > Looking over the changes I have some questions and comments... > - I would have forgot to update megahal_interfaces(3) after applying the > patch. I didn't apply the patch... If you mean the patch I've sent in #169805, it has not been included as such my package. I moved the patch from the megahal end user program to the "megahal library", it's probably cleaner. > - I don't know if it's a good idea to split the package as some of the > packages seem rather small. The ftp people may reject the additional > packages. It's a compromise: - if you're a perl developper and you need to install python you might get upset. It's okay for me if you want to join the three in the same package, with an udpated description that states this clearly. > - I must have missed it, but the Apps/Science suggestion, sounds good. Thanks to Martin F. Krafft. It's not an easy choice, Games or even Apps/Text could almost fit. Apps/Science is probably the better choice. > - Did you make all the changes necessary to update the standards number? I > was having trouble with implementing 10.1. I read through upgrading-checklist. 10.1 is more or less implemented using a template debian/rules for another package. But it need further examination, to be sure. > - You should really use version 9.1.0-x as the last upstream release was > 9.1.0. You might also want to consider doing a new upstream release as I > had suggested to everyone listed as a MegaHal developer. When I first started hacking I made a diff between latest CVS and 9.1.0, which was almost empty. My package are based on latest CVS and I forgot to update the upstream version to 9.1.0 in the package. Having a new upstream release is a good idea, it's on my TODO list, but don't expect my work to be done before monday. > Looking of the source I have some comments: > - You probably shouldn't include your CVS info. Try a checkout as > anonymous if you feel even having the CVS directory is a good thing. > (I'm not sure) I'll drop the CVS directory. No sensitive information was lost :-) > - I had to pick a changelog from either Debian and/or Megahal. I either > chose the more detailed one, or amalgamated the two. I didn't look that > closely to see what you did. That's right, I'll clarify my changes. > - I like how you handled the python dependency... much nicer than my > solution. I'm guessing the correct python version gets set as a > binary dependency? I've changed the python interface part using a template found in another python package. Not sure if this still works with any python version though. > - Hmm, I missed the copyright file update. What did lintian tell you? It > didn't seem to tell me anything. It told me the copyright file should refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL and not include the verbatim GPL. > - You should probably say the manpage was originals written by David and > then modified by you. Right. > - For the Debian version I'd like the no brain found to suggest that the > user might want to use megahal_personal. It would also be nice to tell > the user that MegaHal needs to be taught... maybe something the #quit > command too. Good idea. > After writing most of this I'm getting the feeling that you have more > energy than me for working on this package... I suggest you consider my > comments and then ask my sponsor if he'd sponsor you. I've asked an debian-qa for a sponsor for the package. I'll ask your sponsor to upload my current package if you like (is he madduck?). Are we short on time for sarge release? > I'd still like to split out the debian directory and make the sources non > Debian native. That way to do an debian update you don't have to upload > the entire source archive. Agreed. > I still want to do an audit of MegaHal, especially if it's to be run > exposed to non local users. I.e. as a bot on IRC. To do this audit I'm > going to start with all the warnings (even low ones) from rats. Good idea, I'm also concerned by security but didn't have time to check for vulnerabilities myself. > Fwiw, you may be interested to know that there are "better" conversation > simulators out there. I.e. ones that fooled more judges at the Lobner > Turing Test competition. I like MegaHal for the algorithm that it uses. > I'd even like to modify the algorithm a bit, but I think it'd be better > for me to create a new project to do that. Are the other simulators able to learn as well? I'm also interested in your algorithm modifications. Cheers, Laurent.
pgpB50dspsF6U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
