Re: OSCAR 10.12 has been packaged
I hear you. We are interested in quality and are ISO certified as of
last year. However the deployment quality bits we handle in different
The deb (and the windows installer) for us is mostly a way to
demonstrate the technology. Its the full Monty in a basic
configuration that you can then trick out to your hearts content.
However most doctors are not inclined to do so themselves.
The vast majority of end users have someone that they depend on to
install and maintain Oscar (in our parlance Oscar Service Providers).
The OSP's in a way are our chief "customer" and do not need a deb as
they can follow our instructions for compiling from source, and/or
make their own deployment scripts. McMaster University actually has a
course and auditing standards for OSP's to ensure deployments are
secure and functional which a deb cannot do.
So for the moment and the near future our poor man's debification of
Oscar will have to do. I am interested in getting it cleaned up so
that it would be eligible to enter a repository, its just too much for
me right now.
"The attitude that ‘if rural people want these services they’ll have
to come to the city to get them’ is simply not acceptable…” (Newbery,
Before printing, think about the environment. Avant d' imprimer,
pensez à l'environnement.
On 29 July 2012 09:18, Sebastian Hilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2012 02:41:56 PM Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 08:26:45AM -0400, Peter Hutten-Czapski wrote:
>> > For now I release things that look like debs at sourceforge.
>> Which is great but it need not stay that way.
>> > The next hill to a more formal repository seems a bit steep right now
>> It is not about a repository.
> Getting a software packaged properly will give users a clear path towards
> installation package source, upgrade paths and so on.
> Furthermore it is quality control and enables feedback through well
> established channels.