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@an3as.eu To: FedoraMedical medical-sig@lists.fedorahosted.org Cc: Karsten Hilbert Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net, Sebastian Hilbert sebastian.hilbert@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.