Re: Starting packaging VistA (Re: LSM in Geneva)
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 08:44:24AM -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> Let me give it a try,
> and hopefully others can also contribute to complete a full picture.
> ...
> j) One can summarize the differences by making an analogy
> between VistA and a Linux distribution. There are many flavours
> of Linux Distributions, and one can't really answer the question:
>
> Which one is the "True" Linux Distribution ?
"One can't really answer the question"????
Yes, we can! ;-)
> Although, I'm sure that in this list
> many participants will suggest a "particular" answer... :-)
At least we can joke about this...
> I think it will be reasonable to plan for packaging multiple VistA
> distributions. In particular, I would suggest the following:
>
>
> Vista Distribution Potential Debian package name
>
> VistA FOIA vista, or vista-foia, or vista-ehr
> WorldVistA worldvista, or world-vista, worldvista-ehr
> vxVistA vxvista, or vx-vista
> OpenVista openvista, or open-vista
For the moment I would consider one for a start might be sufficient and
I would consider "the one you as the person who is doing the work are
interested in the most" fits best. Once we have gathered some
experience with this and other interested persons might show up and will
volunteer to do the work there will probably nobody who stops them in
doing so.
> In http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=541245
> Bhaskar choose "worldvista-ehr" as package name for WorldVistA,
> and in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=541242
> he choose "VistA", (with the uppercase/lowercase) which is indeed
> the most common spelling of VistA.
I perfectly understood the spelling issue - but package names are simply
lower case and the web interface just uses upper case for the first
letter.
> BTW, when changing the name I got the impression that Debian
> packages do not use uppercase in the names. Is that right ?
That's correct. Please use lower case exclusively. A package name is
just no project name. You can for instance specify this in
debian/copyright field Upstream-Name and you are free to use whatever
spelling in the package description.
> > The next thing is that the Homepage in the ITP for Vista[2] from Bhaskar
> > is [4] clearly contains the string "VistA". However the homepage you
> > injected into the control file[5] is totally different[6] is mentioning
> > OSEHRA but the terms VistA, Mumps, FIS or something like this are not on
> > this page. I'd call this confusing. Any reason not to use [4] as
> > homepage?
> >
>
> 1) Yes, it is confusing.
> This is due to the multiplicity of VistA distributions explained above.
>
> 2) My suggested solution is to create separate Debian packages
> for each distribution. The packaging files will actually be very
> similar (as far as "how" the package is built), and their main
> differences will be the associations of homepage and upstream
> team.
>
> Once we package one of the VistA distributions,
> the packaging of the others should follow very easily.
As I said: Just lets do things step by step and start with exactly one
flavour. Once this is finished we will see what should be done next.
> > The description in the tasks file[1] speaks about flavours of VistA - if
> > OSEHRA is such a thing this information would definitely belong to the
> > description and also a reason why this flavour was choosen for
> > packaging. I admit that some slight hints could be read out of your
> > copyright file.
>
> I suggest to take the points (a) to (j) from my long answer above
> and add them to the description; of course after we consult with
> WorldVistA, and others and reword the statements as needed
> until we are all comfortable with them.
Your longish explanation was quite interesting but does not really fit
to a package description. I'd rather suggest to put it into
debian/README.Debian.
I also would ask you to fix the Homepage link in a way that the user
will find the string "VistA" on it. This could perfectly be done also
be enhancing the Homepage you are pointing to.
> > Finally your last paragraph in the long description is:
> >
> > VistA is implemented in M/MUMPS, and on Linux depends on the GT.M
> > compiler and database being available.
> >
> > That's rather metainformation which belongs into the Depends relations
> > (were it just is) and not into the long description.
> >
>
> Sure,
> I'm happy to modify this to make it match
> Debian practices and policies.
OK.
> While we converge with others in this conversation, I'll move forward
> with the technical aspects of packaging the VistA FOIA, so that we
> have something concrete for LSM next week.
Thanks for your effort into this.
> I think we have at this point all the ingredients needed for a first draft
> of the package. We should then do a tight review of the packaging
> files and put them in order.
As you see I'm watching the process closely and I'm optimistic that we
will be able to present something.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: