Merging freediams into freemedforms

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:05:48 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I maintain two packages for the fedora-medical SIG that fall under the
> "freemedforms[1]" project. At the moment, these are packaged separately:
> 
> 1. freemedforms[2]: provides freemedforms-emr and pulls in freediams
> 2. freediams[3]
> 
> Now, freemedforms-emr and freediams are both built from the same source,

Since Fedora package git has been changed already, I've had a look at the
f18 branch:

  $ cat freediams/sources 
  e014e81b349ef5d41bdb956653fb18ab  freemedformsfullsources-0.7.5.tgz
  $ cat freemedforms/sources 
  e014e81b349ef5d41bdb956653fb18ab  freemedformsfullsources-0.7.5.tgz

???

_Why_ has it been done like that?

> and use the same internal libraries. Currently, I first build
> freemedforms-emr and the common libraries (spec[4]) and then build
> freediams (spec[5]), pointing to these libraries. 

Is it strictly required to build stuff from freemedforms src.rpm _before_
freediams could be built from the same tarball? Would it have been
possible to build both from within a single src.rpm?
 
> Recently, with the 0.9.0-beta1 release, upstream sent me a new spec and
> suggested I use one spec to build both freedmedforms and freediams, and
> provide freediams as a subpackage.
> 
> I've built freemedforms already, and I'm in the process of updating
> freediams now. 
> 
> I think it's a good idea, since they'll always move hand in hand. The
> build process will be simpler, and so will maintaining the package and
> updates.
> 
> What do you folks think? Should I go ahead and retire(obsolete)
> freediams and provide it as a subpackage in freemedforms? I don't see
> any issues with this, but wanted to consult you folks to be sure before
> I go ahead and make the changes. 

Of course! If that hasn't been possible before and now _is_ possible with
0.9.0-beta1, it's the better choice than duplicating the source tarball.