Re: FreeDiams uploaded
Hi Andreas, Hi all, So, I've made some bug corrections, files properties corrections and some improvements in FreeDiams. These are not yet published. Le 4 oct. 09 à 22:33, Andreas Tille a écrit : I commited packaging stuff for FreeDiams which splits the single binary into two and also adds a doc packages. Ok I'll make some changes with upcoming v0.1.2 (debug version). Doc path will be all lowered (doc/html/freediams) I'm not completely happy with this because when activating the rpath patch the dynamic libraries are not found in the end. This might be investigated later. Yes I don't really understand this, you've defined the LD_LIBRARY_PATH in rules, so rpath is not necessary after installation ? There are two rpath definitions : - libs/rpath.pri --> used by libs and main app - plugins/fmf_plugins.pri --> used by plugins I saw in your diff that you only changed the main app / libs rpath, not the plugins. Please, send me your complete error log. I'll try to manage this. I have a question with the upstream program: Is there really a need for asking the user to agree with the license? Hummm, I'm protecting myself of any "reclamation"... I'm not really inform of legal issues in Open Source software. I must add a start message like this : "FreeDiams MUST NOT BE USED for automedication, please contact your doctor." Kind regards Andreas. Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FreeDiams uploaded
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Eric MAEKER wrote: > >I have a question with the upstream program: Is there really a need > >for asking the user to agree with the license? > Hummm, I'm protecting myself of any "reclamation"... > I'm not really inform of legal issues in Open Source software. > I must add a start message like this : "FreeDiams MUST NOT BE USED > for automedication, please contact your doctor." Ah, I see. This is less an issue with users as such rather than with non-doctor users. I agree you better include such a disclaimer. It got nothing to do with whether this is Open Source or not. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FreeDiams uploaded
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Eric MAEKER wrote: > So, I've made some bug corrections, files properties corrections and > some improvements in FreeDiams. These are not yet published. I'd suggest we try the same packaging stuff on your new version. Or is there anything which prevents your from releasing this besides the packaging issues? > Ok I'll make some changes with upcoming v0.1.2 (debug version). Doc path > will be all lowered (doc/html/freediams) This can be adapted easily. > Yes I don't really understand this, you've defined the LD_LIBRARY_PATH > in rules, so rpath is not necessary after installation ? > There are two rpath definitions : > - libs/rpath.pri --> used by libs and main app > - plugins/fmf_plugins.pri --> used by plugins > I saw in your diff that you only changed the main app / libs rpath, not > the plugins. > Please, send me your complete error log. I'll try to manage this. Well, there is no real errorlog. The package builds and the program runs. If I try to remove the rpath warnings by patching the Makefile the programm does not run any more because it does not find the libraries in the subdirectory. But as I said: we should leave it as it is for the moment and continue working on this later. >> I have a question with the upstream program: Is there really a need >> for asking the user to agree with the license? > Hummm, I'm protecting myself of any "reclamation"... > I'm not really inform of legal issues in Open Source software. Well, the licensing issue is *really* unusual when running GPLed software. > I must add a start message like this : "FreeDiams MUST NOT BE USED for > automedication, please contact your doctor." I have no idea whether this is needed or not. You might discuss this issue on the Debian Med list because there are doctors who might know. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FreeDiams uploaded
Le 16 oct. 09 à 14:13, Andreas Tille a écrit : I'd suggest we try the same packaging stuff on your new version. Ok for the three file packaging. Can you help me on configuring a package repository ? I known 'repro' as a repository maker... Yes I don't really understand this, you've defined the LD_LIBRARY_PATH in rules, so rpath is not necessary after installation ? There are two rpath definitions : - libs/rpath.pri --> used by libs and main app - plugins/fmf_plugins.pri --> used by plugins I saw in your diff that you only changed the main app / libs rpath, not the plugins. Please, send me your complete error log. I'll try to manage this. Well, there is no real errorlog. The package builds and the program runs. If I try to remove the rpath warnings by patching the Makefile the programm does not run any more because it does not find the libraries in the subdirectory. But as I said: we should leave it as it is for the moment and continue working on this later. Oh I understand, Litian warns about a wrong rpath and you tried to remove the whole rpath configuration ? If this is the problem, yes you should better ignore it for now... I don't really know how to remove these warnings easily for now. Well, the licensing issue is *really* unusual when running GPLed software. That's true. I don't really know what is the best choice for this dialog. You should know that it appears only once each time you update the version, or at the first start up. This is not really annoying. I must add a start message like this : "FreeDiams MUST NOT BE USED for automedication, please contact your doctor." I have no idea whether this is needed or not. You might discuss this issue on the Debian Med list because there are doctors who might know. Ok so the question is asked ;) Kind regards Andreas. Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FreeDiams uploaded
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 02:31:05PM +0200, Eric MAEKER wrote: >> I'd suggest we try the same packaging stuff on your new version. > Ok for the three file packaging. Can you help me on configuring a > package repository ? I known 'repro' as a repository maker... I'm afraid I do not understand the question. What exactly is repro? You get the three binary packages if you unpack your source tarball checkout the debian directory of freediams from SVN copy it to the unpackage tarball and say `debuild` there. That's basically all. > Oh I understand, Litian warns about a wrong rpath and you tried to > remove the whole rpath configuration ? Yes. And I redid this change because at least my change broke the resulting binary. > If this is the problem, yes you should better ignore it for now... I > don't really know how to remove these warnings easily for now. This is what I suggested. > That's true. I don't really know what is the best choice for this > dialog. > You should know that it appears only once each time you update the > version, or at the first start up. > This is not really annoying. It is finally your decision and I just have given a comment from my (uneducated) perspective. If you think it is needed - just ignore my comment. But after your explanation I actually wonder whether the current way to express: >>> I must add a start message like this : "FreeDiams MUST NOT BE USED >>> for >>> automedication, please contact your doctor." is very proably overlooked by users who are "trained" to click licensing information away ... So I would really not mix up the licensing information which is actually more or less useless whith the medical information which seems to be very important. At least *I* did *not* noticed this information. >> I have no idea whether this is needed or not. You might discuss this >> issue on the Debian Med list because there are doctors who might know. > Ok so the question is asked ;) Fine for me but as I said try to focus it more onto the real intend. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
pdb2pqr maintained by DebiChem team but in Debian Med repository?
Hi, when touching some packages to add Enhances fields I realised that pdb2pqr is (formally?) maintained by DebiChem team but is sitting in Debian Med repository. I admit I do not mind which actual team is mentioned in the maintainers field but I think it makes sense to put the packaging in the according repository. Perhaps this fact is the reason that nobody uploaded the new version? Could anybody please comment on this issue? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FreeDiams uploaded
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Eric MAEKER wrote: >> What exactly is repro? > Eh eh, I've missed two letters ;) > I was talking about reprepro soft : a local repository of Debian > packages manager. Ahh, that's what Manuel assumed (in PM)... >> You get the three binary packages if you unpack your source tarball >> checkout the debian directory of freediams from SVN copy it to >> the unpackage tarball and say `debuild` there. That's basically >> all. > Yes but I'd like : > - only one package for the download page > - or a package repository for debian files. Well, this sounds reasonable as long as there is no official package. Once freediams is an official Debian package there is no real need to maintain a private repository any more. For the sake of simplicity I suggest to just leave your single package as it is. Let's continue to work on the multi binary package for the official Debian packages. Once these are available from Debian mirrors you can just drop your private packages. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: pdb2pqr maintained by DebiChem team but in Debian Med repository?
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:01:44PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > when touching some packages to add Enhances fields I realised > that pdb2pqr is (formally?) maintained by DebiChem team but is > sitting in Debian Med repository. I admit I do not mind which > actual team is mentioned in the maintainers field but I think > it makes sense to put the packaging in the according repository. > > Perhaps this fact is the reason that nobody uploaded the new > version? It's not like previous versions got uploaded. > Could anybody please comment on this issue? There are still copyright/license issues to resolve according to Manuel, IIRC. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
