Fis-gtm accepted in unstable (Was: Packaging VistA - GT.M directories)
Hi,
finally we have a nice Christmas gift for all people dealing with VistA:
fis-gtm is now accepted in unstable. Now it is time to work on
reasonable VistA packages and we *really* need to rely on upstream to
let this happen. I think we should start now(ish) on this heavy task
since the time to next freeze is short (only less than 11 monthes and it
took us about two years to get fis-gtm in). I'm offering all my help to
*guide* into Debian internals, *mentor* people who have VistA internal
knowledge oir whatever - but I personally can not take the lead in the
main packaging effort since I feel totally incapable doe to a lack of
even basic knowledge about this complex system.
Thanks to everybody who has helped to let fis-gtm packages become
available in official Debian
Andreas.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 05:25:05PM +0200, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
> 2012/7/14 Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez@kitware.com>:
>
> > Our first rough cut at the directory structure
> > for the VistA Debian package has been:
> >
> >
> > /var/lib/vista/
> > /var/lib/vista/r
> > /var/lib/vista/o
> > /var/lib/vista/g
> > /var/lib/vista/j
> > /var/lib/vista/logs
> > /var/lib/vista/inetd
> > /var/lib/vista/profile
>
> (I apologize beforehand for being largely ignorant about the way
> Debian packages work. I also hope that this question hasn’t been asked
> and answered before.)
>
> I have a problem understanding how the following would work:
>
> * The package seems to contain files constituting a database (which
> seems to mean both data and code in an M context).
> * Those files are put in /var/, and are therefore probably expected to
> change during the normal course of operations (e.g., when VistA is
> being used by users).
> * Are those files therefore supposed to be considered “configuration
> files”? (Because package-provided non-configuration files are not
> supposed to be changed except by the package management system.)
> * If so, how are updates supposed to work? Do newer packages contain a
> full “pristine” version of a VistA database or rather files that
> describe how to update existing files (“KIDS patches”)?
> * Such a full pristine version seems to be required in any case,
> because otherwise I don’t see how users that install the newer package
> without upgrading from an older version would be able to get a VistA
> database.
>
> I.e., I don’t understand how the mixture of user data (changed
> continuously) and code-like stuff (normally managed by the package
> management system) is going to be implemented by the package.
>
> Are there other packages that had to solve a similar problem?
>
> Nicolas
>
> --
> A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
> Q. Why is top posting bad?
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAP-rdTaP2OXGTrxzKs-ONRDpn7ECQruZh831HJydtYKV8OaG3Q@mail.gmail.com
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: