Re: FreeDiams uploaded
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Eric MAEKER wrote:
> So, I've made some bug corrections, files properties corrections and
> some improvements in FreeDiams. These are not yet published.
I'd suggest we try the same packaging stuff on your new version.
Or is there anything which prevents your from releasing this besides
the packaging issues?
> Ok I'll make some changes with upcoming v0.1.2 (debug version). Doc path
> will be all lowered (doc/html/freediams)
This can be adapted easily.
> Yes I don't really understand this, you've defined the LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> in rules, so rpath is not necessary after installation ?
> There are two rpath definitions :
> - libs/rpath.pri --> used by libs and main app
> - plugins/fmf_plugins.pri --> used by plugins
> I saw in your diff that you only changed the main app / libs rpath, not
> the plugins.
> Please, send me your complete error log. I'll try to manage this.
Well, there is no real errorlog. The package builds and the program
runs. If I try to remove the rpath warnings by patching the Makefile
the programm does not run any more because it does not find the
libraries in the subdirectory. But as I said: we should leave it as
it is for the moment and continue working on this later.
>> I have a question with the upstream program: Is there really a need
>> for asking the user to agree with the license?
> Hummm, I'm protecting myself of any "reclamation"...
> I'm not really inform of legal issues in Open Source software.
Well, the licensing issue is *really* unusual when running GPLed
software.
> I must add a start message like this : "FreeDiams MUST NOT BE USED for
> automedication, please contact your doctor."
I have no idea whether this is needed or not. You might discuss this
issue on the Debian Med list because there are doctors who might know.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: