Hello Dr. Braun, Before voting I would like to ask:
Is this question relating to SUSE packaging only? Are these alternatives mutually exclusive - meaning whichever loses the poll will be dropped? Another issue is that there is always a security risk in installing software (modules) that is "unused" because it may ## become ## used by hackers - so a small convenience breeds a potential insecurity. We all agree that in the health domain, security must be an important concern, possibly an overriding concern. I believe the convenience is not worth it. (So you already know which way I will vote :-) On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 20:13:14 +0100 "Dr. Axel Braun" <axel.br...@gnuhealth.org> wrote: > Dear GNU Health Users, > > having spoken to a couple of people during HealthCon, a question came > into my mind: How shall we build packages in the future? > > In openSUSE we have all modules in one package: > zypper install gnuhealth > installs the server and all GNU Health modules. No doubt, this is > very convenient. You can still activate only those modules that you > really need, and the rest just uses some disk space (and maybe some > milliseconds processing time during startup). > > An alternative would be to have one packet per module - this is > basically how GNU Health is presented on Pypi, and how it was done > for Debian. It allows you to only install what you really need and do > some fine-tuning of your installation (of course you can add modules > later!) > > So, each option has pros and cons. > Let me know your opinion and vote here: > > https://forms.gle/StixA441JgpT2dfD7 > > Thanks! > Axel > > >
