On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 01:35:35AM -0700, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> I can not imagine any severe breakage - perhaps adjusting pathes
in some
> scripts. Do you see any strong reason for this rename? Do you think
> the decision for /var/lib/gnumed-server is suboptimal?
The reason I did this because fedora packaging naming guideline says:
"When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or
project name from which this software came.", which, in this case, is
gnumed-server and also, I get to use %{name} macro everywhere.
I agree that this in principle makes sense. (I guess there is a similar
suggestion somewhere in the Debian docs).
However, packaging guideline also says "If this package has
been
packaged by other distributions/packagers in the past, then you should
try to match their name for consistency.".
So, I am fine with both naming schemes, just need to make a decision
which one to use. :)
I think my decision to use /var/lib/gnumed was drawn in the beginning of
my packaging work and if I remember correctly at these times the
original tarballs were not even separated. I also might have had some
reason that there was also some client data in /var/lib and it seemed
logical (at this time) to put both into one dir. This is not really
true any more. I think it makes sense to let the GNUmed authors decide
what they would consider the most apropriate place and stick to this
decision.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de