I am fine with either.
Karsten
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 01:08:07PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:08:07 +0100
From: Andreas Tille <andreas(a)an3as.eu>
To: FedoraMedical <medical-sig(a)lists.fedorahosted.org>
Cc: Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert(a)gmx.net>,
Sebastian Hilbert <sebastian.hilbert(a)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: GNumed server packaging.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
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
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346