Re: Starting packaging VistA (Re: LSM in Geneva)
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:53:23AM -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> > 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,
> I'll move to git.debian.org, now that we have
> cleared the package name to be "vista".
Great. Just check out Debian Med policy document how to do this in case
something might remain unclear.
> 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)
Hmmm, I have no idea about VistA internals but it somehow looks like
there would be some "changing" content. Please not that only files
which are "unchanged" inside the package should go to /usr and
/usr/share is for arch independant code (its not fully clear what you
mean by "Compiled code").
Just be guided by the idea that /usr should be possible to mount
read-only as a simple check what should be in /usr and what should
possibly go to /var/lib/vista .
> 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).
So if GT.M takes some kind of source and compiles the result to some
binary code once the package is installed it should most probably go to
/var/lib/vista. You can perfectly deal with symlinks to "fake" all
things in one place.
> 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... ?
Possibly.
> 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.
Sounds reasonable.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: