[Fedora-packaging] Merging freediams into freemedforms

[Ankur Sinha]

On Sat, 2013-08-24 at 22:30 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Hi Ankur,

Hi Dominik,

> 
> On Friday, 16 August 2013 at 07:03, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> [...]
> > 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. 
> 
> Yes, it's the correct thing to do if they're all built from single
> source tarball. Why were they ever built separately?

Well, the tarball contains the entire freemedforms suite, including code
for software that isn't read yet (freeICD, freeAccounts etc.). Even
though both freemedforms and freediams are from this tarball, they are
completely unrelated, i.e., they can be used independently of one
another AND they even have different build steps [1]. 

In such a scenario, I had thought it better + simpler to package them up
separately.

Upstream has now improved the build etc. process quite a bit and
suggested I use only one spec, which he sent[1].

I'm still building them separately, but pushing them as updates together
in bodhi[2]. I don't mind continuing this way. It's not enough of
overhead to cause me discomfort. I'll just like to use the way that's
best suited to the scenario, which is why I'd like to hear what you
folks think. :)

[1] http://paste.fedoraproject.org/34702/76982137/
[2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freemedforms
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20130826/ffdde127/attachment.sig>