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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
