Re: Starting packaging VistA (Re: LSM in Geneva)
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:28:59AM -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> The hint that we have observed is that the problem is only with files
> in the utf8 sub-directory. So, at some point we suspect that umask
> was involved somehow. We could still experiment with forcing
> permissions in the utf8 directory in the dh_fixperms stage...
>
> I'll try that later today.
Fine. I just finished the second event I registered for LSM (from my
perspective successfully because we created a non-trivial package from
some "random" medical imaging software which was not known at the
beginning of the workshop - some kind of MoM done in 2.5 hours ;-)).
Tomorrow there will be my last talk (about VistA packaging).
>
> May I borrow your time traveling device? ;-)
> > I've lost mine somewhere in the future ...
>
> :-)
>
> mm,... It looks like I have to fix that date..
>
> Now it will be:
>
> "0.0.20111206"
Fine.
> W: vista source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends vista-0.0.20121206
> W: vista source: maintainer-script-lacks-debhelper-token
> debian/vista.postinst
If you call `lintian -i` you will get easy to follow hints how to
solve this.
> W: vista-0.0.20121206: empty-binary-package
Probably a consequence of your next move.
> BTW,
> I forgot to mention that, following Bhaskar suggestion, we now
> have two packages:
>
> A) vista-0.0.20121206
> B) vista (a metapackage that points to A).
I would (strongly!) suggest to delay this move until we might have any
A1 and A2 - there is no need at all for this for the moment and creating
one once it is needed is very easy. Creating something which is not
needed is just a cause of trouble and confusing for others.
> I will appreciate a review here from Debian developers,
> because I'm not sure that I did that right.... (the metapackage)
I would love to check if you would confirm that the simple lintian
issues are fixed and please drop the metapackage for now - it makes no
sense at the *current* state.
> > e) consider splitting into sensible units
> Yeap,...
> the package now is 314Mb...
I can not see from a sheer number whether it is sensible or not.
On what principle the space reduction was done?
> We will bring this topic to our weekly call on Thursday,
> and see what VistA experts suggest.
Great. I was pretty sure that we need to involve upstream and I'm
very lucky that you are serving as the missing link. That's reall
appreciated.
Thanks a lot
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: