On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Andreas Tille
<andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
[Quoting you in public because nothing was private in your mail]
The more Brains and Eyes the better ! :-)
Hi Luis,
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 05:49:41PM -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> I'm starting the Debian packaging for VistA here:
>
> https://github.com/luisibanez/debian-med-vista
It is very good that you will start with the packaging but *please*
could you choose alioth for doing so? In Debian Med policy it is
explained how we deal with Git repositories and when you do so our
automatic tools can fetch the data you are injecting. This would be
really helpfull!
Sure, I'll moved it there.
I was just starting it quickly and
didn't want to break the naming rules in the SVN repository.
> So far, I picked the arbitrary name of "vista-ehr"
> as a package name.
Sounds reasonable.
Ok,
Although with your good news below,
I'm now leaning towards the more
natural and expected name : "vista".
> I'm happy to change it for anything that fits the
> Debian rules and avoid the conflict with the
> exising "vista" package from "mia" in the SVN
> repository.
What "vista" package do you mean - do you mean (the just renamed ;-)))
libmia-vista?.
Yes, that is (was) the one. :-)
It had a "vista" directory at the "Packages" level
of the Debian SVN repository.
It is unreleased and I have the gut feeling that it
never will be released - so I did not hesitated a second to rename it
That's great news ! :-)
(it should have been named libvista anyway and I think the 'mia-' prefix
helps making a clear difference to "the" VistA.)
Agreed
> BTW: it doesn't look like that "vista" package
> has ever been released..., is there a procedure
> to reclaim a package name ?... maybe.... :-)
Feel free to take vista ... (if you are not afraid about lawyers from
a totally unrelated product ;-))
I'm way more afraid of doctors
working in hospitals without EHRs,... :-)
So, I'll be taking "vista" as package name.
If a name dispute arises, VistA has been around
for long enough (~30 years) that it will easy to
explain who has the first right to the name.
> I'll process in github with a quick-and-dirty approach
> to get something done, at least so that all the pieces
> are there. We can then revisit it and modify it to make
> sure that it follows all the Debian rules.
>
> I'm sketching the process in this Wiki page
> in the github repository:
> https://github.com/luisibanez/debian-med-vista/wiki/Overview-of-Debian-Packaging-for-VistA
As I said: I would really love if you would consider git.debian.org as
the main site for the package creation.
Agreed,
cleared the package name to be "vista".
> In summary, it is similar to setting a system like
> Moodle or like Wikimedia.
>
> I'll appreciate suggestions of other existing packages
> that I could use as examples.
Unfortunately I have no good advise here - but that's why I moved
discussion to the list.
Thanks !
I can use Debian help on this configuration.
In the meantime,
I'll install it in a rather arbitrary directory,
which at this point is going to be:
/usr/share/vista
but will be happy to move it anywhere else,
where it will be more consistent with Debian's
file system organization.
The directory structure so far is:
/usr/share/vista
/usr/share/vista/r : Source code
/usr/share/vista/o : Compiled code
/usr/share/vista/g : globals (database)
VistA with GT.M compiles the M code into .o files,
but needs both types of files to stick around for the
system to work properly (actually, it is more a GTM
requirement than a VistA requirement).
Then, we will have to talk about "users", just as with
a MySQL installation, a Postgress installation, or a
Moodle installation.
Probably a "vista" user and a "vista" group would
make sense... ?
In particularly a "vista" group, where then all other
users who are supposed to need access to the
VistA ehr can be made part of the "vista" group.
Thanks
Luis