Re: debian-med newbie seeks advice on where to place packages
Thanks for the responses, Andreas. Please look below for [KSB] for
further questions / clarifications. Thanks again.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast.
On 08/12/2009 02:21 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 06:52:24PM -0400, K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
[KSB] <...snip...>
Two questions here:
1. Are you sure that there is a need to install binaries for more than
one architecture on one maschine. While this might be possible
with multiarch support I do not think that it is really intended
here and you might consider droping the architecture from the
directory name.
[KSB] While it will not be common to have both 32- and 64-bit GT.M on
the same system, there are a few people who will want both. If I
consider that possibility now, it will make for less work later. So, I
will sequence my work to create the 32-bit binary package first, then
the source package and then the 64-bit binary package.
2. I think when you write x8664 binaries you mean what is called amd64
in Debian (and yes, also Intel chips are supported under this name).
[KSB] Yes, I do mean amd64.
<...snip...>
> 4. GT.M requires the ability to execute dynamically compiled code (it's
> a feature of the MUMPS language). To give GT.M this permission with
> SELinux, the usual installation of GT.M executes a command such as chcon
> -t texrel_shlib_t libgtmshr.so. But this presumes that SELinux is
> installed and operational. If SELinux is installed or configured later,
> this command will need to be run at that time. Is there a way to tell
> the Debian package manager, "if SELinux is installed or turned on, run
> this command"?
Hmmm, IMHO this is a question which should be directed to the debian-mentors
list. You do not need to subscribe any Debian list - but make sure you
observe the list archive for answers to your question because people might
forget to CC you (even if you ask explicitely to do so). I have never
dealt with SELinux stuff and do not know a reasonable answer.
[KSB] I did not find a suitable answer in the debian-mentors archives,
so I have joined the list and submitted my question.
Remark to Daniel's mail: I perfectly agree that short names (for packages
and binaries) tend to name space pollution. While I checked that there is
not yet a gtm package I missed that the gtml package has a gtm binary. If
I understood you correctly the GT.M binaries are not named gtm so this would
be no actual conflict - but using more verbose names is always a good idea.
So probably your suggestion fis-gtm is OK and I really like mumps-gtm
because this sounds reasonable for an implementation of MUMPS somehow.
But finally it is your choice as the maintainer to find a proper name.
[KSB] Since there is not a gtm binary in GT.M, I will call the package
fis-gtm.
<...snip...>
Reply to: