Hi Michael, I'm sorry for the *very* delayed reply. I hadn't noticed this mail come in. On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 20:41 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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? Two reasons: - In the past, the build system wasn't as good as it is now. - Since they are two *completely* different applications, we thought it'd be better + easier to review them separately when we initially packaged them up. > > > 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? Yes. It's a must since freediams requires the *same* internal libraries that are built during the freemedforms build. Ideally, if they were built differently, both would generate the libraries during their respective build processes. Instead of doing this, and duplicating the libraries, I build the libraries only once with freemedforms and then point the freediams build to them. If I build them from the same src.rpm, I'll do: cmake.......# build freemedforms with libraries cmake.......# point to already built libraries and build freediams (This is what upstream's spec also does. It doesn't use one cmake command to build everything) > > > 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. Great. I wanted to be sure of this before I went around obsoleting packages etc. I'll combine them whenever I find the cycles. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
