[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GNU Health autoremove from testing

Hi Emilien,

many thanks for your continuous work on gnuhealth package.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Emilien Klein wrote:
> > - only initialize a limited number of GNU Health Tryton modules, point 2 in [0].
> Since the Tryton Debian package isn't creating a database as part of
> their packaging efforts, they never hit this issue (which, as I've
> explained, I've never seen myself, but piuparts somehow does). Based
> on the various discussions with the Tryton Debian maintainer, I don't
> expect the Tryton package will start creating its own database anytime
> soon, and as such they will not see/fix this bug. I will mention this
> one more time for good measure.

I'm not sure whether I'm fully understand this since I have no idea
about Tryton but if you think there is a hidden bug in the Tryton
packages it would make sense to report it.
> Starting with version 2.4.1-3 of the GNU Health package in Debian,
> there will thus only be one binary package (`gnuhealth`) produced,
> which will contain the server-side components (Tryton modules) and
> nothing else.

I wonder whether you committed your last status of SVN since the package
does not even build in thie form.  I think we now have serious trouble

  Build-Depends: ...
               tryton-server (>= 3.0~),
               tryton-server (<< 3.1~)

is not fullfilled in unstable any more (and we need to create packages
against an unstable chroot.  And yes, I have read (but not fully
understood) the Tryton version discussion with its unfortunate outcome
for gnuhealth.

There is another issue why I'm asking whether you commited your
last status since you should provide a smooth upgrade path from
previously installed packages saying

   Provides: gnuhealth-server, gnuhealth-client
   Replaces: gnuhealth-server, gnuhealth-client
   Conflicts: gnuhealth-server, gnuhealth-client

> I am a bit sad to remove what I still consider to be a functional and
> user-friendly packaging:

I can perfectly understand this.  However, we have other examples like
for instance GNUmed where even upstream prefers a manual database setup.

> But on the other hand I'm not that sad, since:
> ...


> The new version 2.4.1-3 is pushed to Subversion. Could one of the
> Debian-med DDs please upload it to unstable? (will close the Serious
> bug #748561 which, if left open, would mean the complete removal of
> gnuhealth in sid in less than 2 weeks).

Since the versioning trouble this will most probably be the fate of this
package. :-(
> The packages gnuhealth-server and gnuhealth-client will have to be
> removed from sid (and from testing once the new package migrates to
> testing).

The removal of the binary packages is automatically done once the
package with the changed binary package names will be uploaded.

Kind regards



Reply to: