Hi,
I maintain two packages for the fedora-medical SIG that fall under the "freemedforms[1]" project. At the moment, these are packaged separately:
1. freemedforms[2]: provides freemedforms-emr and pulls in freediams 2. freediams[3]
Now, freemedforms-emr and freediams are both built from the same source, and use the same internal libraries. Currently, I first build freemedforms-emr and the common libraries (spec[4]) and then build freediams (spec[5]), pointing to these libraries.
Recently, with the 0.9.0-beta1 release, upstream sent me a new spec and suggested I use one spec to build both freedmedforms and freediams, and provide freediams as a subpackage.
I've built freemedforms already, and I'm in the process of updating freediams now.
I think it's a good idea, since they'll always move hand in hand. The build process will be simpler, and so will maintaining the package and updates.
What do you folks think? Should I go ahead and retire(obsolete) freediams and provide it as a subpackage in freemedforms? I don't see any issues with this, but wanted to consult you folks to be sure before I go ahead and make the changes.
[1] http://freemedforms.com/en/start [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/freemedforms [3] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/freediams [4] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/freemedforms.git/tree/freemedforms.spec [5] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/freediams.git/tree/freediams.spec
Hi Ankur,
On Friday, 16 August 2013 at 07:03, Ankur Sinha wrote: [...]
What do you folks think? Should I go ahead and retire(obsolete) freediams and provide it as a subpackage in freemedforms? I don't see any issues with this, but wanted to consult you folks to be sure before I go ahead and make the changes.
Yes, it's the correct thing to do if they're all built from single source tarball. Why were they ever built separately?
Regards, Dominik
On Sat, 2013-08-24 at 22:30 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi Ankur,
Hi Dominik,
On Friday, 16 August 2013 at 07:03, Ankur Sinha wrote: [...]
What do you folks think? Should I go ahead and retire(obsolete) freediams and provide it as a subpackage in freemedforms? I don't see any issues with this, but wanted to consult you folks to be sure before I go ahead and make the changes.
Yes, it's the correct thing to do if they're all built from single source tarball. Why were they ever built separately?
Well, the tarball contains the entire freemedforms suite, including code for software that isn't read yet (freeICD, freeAccounts etc.). Even though both freemedforms and freediams are from this tarball, they are completely unrelated, i.e., they can be used independently of one another AND they even have different build steps [1].
In such a scenario, I had thought it better + simpler to package them up separately.
Upstream has now improved the build etc. process quite a bit and suggested I use only one spec, which he sent[1].
I'm still building them separately, but pushing them as updates together in bodhi[2]. I don't mind continuing this way. It's not enough of overhead to cause me discomfort. I'll just like to use the way that's best suited to the scenario, which is why I'd like to hear what you folks think. :)
[1] http://paste.fedoraproject.org/34702/76982137/ [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freemedforms
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org