On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Andreas Tille
<andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
It is using the very same mechanism as it was used in GNUmed (and is
probably overkill also here - but anyway ... its there). You find the
relevant pieces of code in the following files:
arb-common.config
arb-common.postinst
arb-common.templates
Just to clarify,
a) Is it an overkill to create a "vista" user and "vista" group ?
or
b) What is an overkill is the method that was
used to create the user and the group.
I'm not particularly attached to the creation of the user and group,
just had the impression that it was a good idea to help set up
control on access to the database.
I already put an implementation in debian-med SVN, using a file
vista.postinst
that I mostly copied (and adapted) from the "dcmtk" package.
It is using debconf and could be considered as "advanced packaging
technique" (which at some point in time of VistA packaging will be
inevitable most probably). Please note: The way I used to add users to
the group is based on local passwd file which is most probably
insufficient for the purpose because in a hospital you will probably
have LDAP or something like this. So just creating a group in postinst
might come cheap (even without debconf) but if you attempt to do some
more configuration enhancements for your users it will become more
complex.
mm, yeap,
maybe I'm trying to do here something that should rather
be done by the system administrator of a real deployment.
I think I see your point.
I'm happy to remove the "vista.postinst", if that makes the package
more consistent with Debian policies and practices.
Luis