Re: dicomscope packaging
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
For my next task, I'd like to take on dicomscope packaging. Because
of the way it is build, the src code need to be moved within dcmtk.
Ups. My first try would be to ask upstream whether they might be able
to change their build system.
So my question is:
Is it ok for a package to download two tarballs. reshuffle the second
one in the first one, and present just a single tarball as a new
enhanced 'dcmtk' package ?
I'm not sure whether I full understood your suggestion - so I hope this
will answer your question:
If there are certain reasons it is OK to change the source tarball
of a package - for instance you might have to strip non-free unused
files or whatever. In principle there is no problem in enhancing
a tarball by additional code if there is no other chance to reach a
certain functionality which we want to provide. So in principle
writing a get-orig-source target which combines two projects in one
tarball is possible.
I'd vote against shipping the very same code in two different
orig.tar.gz tarballs. So if really needed (and upstream does not
find a way to change their build system) I would vote for adding
dicomscope to the dcmtk package and build an extra binary package.
But I have my doubts about this procedure because it implicitely
means that dcmtk is either not flexible enough to use or thet
dicomscope does not use dcmtk properly and IMHO this is no good
quality measure.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: