Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

On 10/06/2014 07:55 AM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi Bhaskar, > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: >> [KSB] Those *openssl* files are versions of the reference >> implementation of >> the plugin compiled with #include, #if, etc. configured to call call >>

Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

wrote: > Hi Bhaskar, > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: >> [KSB] Those *openssl* files are versions of the reference >> implementation of >> the plugin compiled with #include, #if, etc. configured to call call >> OpenSSL. They are not actually linked to O

Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

.2-000 in the next Debian stable release there are only a few days > left (maximum ten days). These discussions tend to take long and may be > the pragmatic solution Amul has found might be a compromise for the > moment. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > On Sun, Oct

Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

Andreas, please hold off on the upload till the discussion between Thorsten and me runs its course. Thank you. My preference is to keep the package with "openssl" in the names of the symbolic links, since V6.2-000 just continues what V6.1-000 did in the reference implementation of the plugin bein

Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

On 09/30/2014 04:43 AM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi Bhaskar, > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > >> GT.M does not require OpenSSL, does not statically link to it, and does >> not in a strict sense, depend on OpenSSL. But there is a looser >> relationshi

Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

I'll take a look at this Thorsten, and respond by the end of the week. Regards -- Bhaskar On 09/30/2014 04:43 AM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi Bhaskar, > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > >> GT.M does not require OpenSSL, does not statically link to it, and

Re: Updating the fis-gtm package to V6.2-000

On 09/29/2014 02:08 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Andreas Tille wrote: >>> [amul:4] V6.2-000 is ready for upload! >> >> And so I did. Thanks for your work on this > > Hmm, AGPL code without exception linked with openssl doesn't look well .. [KSB] Thorsten, I manage FIS

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 06/08/2014 06:01 PM (US Eastern Time), Luis Ibanez wrote: [KSB] <…snip…> Just to make sure that I'm summarizing the consensus from this discussion: a) My understanding is that we will package both versions of fis-gtm (6.0 and 6.1) b) We will use the meta-package fis-gtm to point

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/11/2014 04:35 PM (US Eastern Time), Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: Dominique's suggestion makes sense. There's no issue changing the latest release and having fis-gtm reflect that, so that someone installing fis-gtm always gets the late

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

Dominique's suggestion makes sense. There's no issue changing the latest release and having fis-gtm reflect that, so that someone installing fis-gtm always gets the latest release. My concern is just to make sure that installing the latest release when fis-gtm is updated should not delete pri

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/08/2014 07:12 PM (US Eastern Time), Andreas Tille wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> More precisely we are talking about versions: fis-gtm-6.0 (currently in Debian) fis-gtm-6.1 (recently released upstream) fis-gtm-6.2 (to be released upstream by mid

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/08/2014 07:12 PM (US Eastern Time), Andreas Tille wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> - The hard links are required, so we will add lintian exceptions for them. I admit that I did not really get it why they are "required" (I think this was not answered by Bhaskar. I think we sho

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB4] We know that they will at least accept 4 versions in sid & jessie (gcc-4.4,, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8). So, let's do the same for GT.M Could you please check the reverse dependencies of gcc before trying this as an argument. Moreover there is a constant effort to r

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/08/2014 09:13 AM (US Eastern Time), Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:17:52AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: We do not distinguish between releases and versions in GT.M. While most packages have versions and releases of versions, there is only one version of GT.M with a

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/08/2014 06:39 AM (US Eastern Time), Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: Thanks for this verbose explanation. Is this a vote to keep three fis-gtm versions at the same time inside a Debian release? All those infinite numbers of releases

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/08/2014 02:27 AM (US Eastern Time), Andreas Tille wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:01:44PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB4] <...snip...> Please trust my experience that it is not about what you think but what is accepted by the gatekeepers of debian (=ftpmaster): They wi

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/07/2014 02:10 PM (US Eastern Time), Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Bhaskar, On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:14:31PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] Since a GT.M release is frozen for all time once it's released, one answer is as many releases as we have disk for. Another answer is that althou

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

This is an attempt to respond to several questions in forks of the thread rooted in this e-mail. Look for [KSB2] below. On 02/06/2014 09:42 PM (US Eastern Time), Bhaskar, K.S wrote: On 02/06/2014 09:21 PM (US Eastern Time), Luis Ibanez wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Andreas Tille

Re: Updating fis-gtm package to 6.1

On 02/06/2014 09:21 PM (US Eastern Time), Luis Ibanez wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Andreas Tille > wrote: > Following the policy for Git-based packaging, we should be able > to host both versions 6.0 and 6.1 side by side without conflict. Yes. Bu

Re: Happy Community Manager Day

+1 Regards -- Bhaskar On 01/28/2014 09:26 AM (US Eastern Time), Luis Ibanez wrote: Blog post at opensource.com : http://opensource.com/business/14/1/open-source-community-manager-appreciation With a section kindly contributed by Andreas Tille. Thanks to Andreas, and

Re: modulefiles for fis-gtm may be?

This is the first I am hearing about modules, and it seems interesting, but I have only scanned the home page. That said, it seems to me that the environment-modules package is designed to set groups of environment variables. But you can't make such an assumption for GT.M environments - the e

Re: Fis-gtm accepted in unstable

Luis -- It might be helpful if you looked at one of my VistA SemiVivA packages (for an example, go to https://sourceforge.net/projects/worldvista-ehr/files/WorldVistA%20EHR%20_VOE%201.0/WorldVistA%20EHR%20_VOE%201.0%20Release%206-2008/ - shortcut at http://tinyurl.com/lgq32vh - look at the rea

Re: [fis-gtm] user experience (WAS Re: Fis-gtm accepted in unstable)

On 12/22/2013 08:41 AM (US Eastern Time), Andreas Tille wrote: Hi, On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 07:02:08AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB2] <...snip...> [amul:2] Should we include a getting started section in the README? [KSB] As Amul says, the gtm script included in GT.M is what

Re: [fis-gtm] user experience (WAS Re: Fis-gtm accepted in unstable)

On 12/21/2013 07:00 PM (US Eastern Time), Amul Shah wrote: Hi Andreas, One, sorry for sending the last email as a top post. On 12/20/13 17:09, Andreas Tille wrote: $ sudo aptitude install fis-gtm-6.0-003 $ export gtm_dist=/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.0-003_x86_64 $ export gtmroutines="$gtm_dist/l

Re: Fis-gtm accepted in unstable (Was: Packaging VistA - GT.M directories)

Yaroslav, how could I forget to mention you in my thanks! You drove several hours to our hackathon to help us get GT.M packaged. Regards -- Bhaskar On 12/15/2013 08:20 PM (US Eastern Time), Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Andreas Tille wrote: finally we have a nice Christmas g

Re: Fis-gtm accepted in unstable

Yes, thanks to all, and especially Andreas Tille, Amul Shah, Luis Ibañez and Brad King. And now on to VistA, which I will try to take on. Let me think about the right flavor, though. There is a code convergence project to merge the various flavors ( http://www.osehra.org/group/code-convergen

Re: [fis-gtm] ready for upload - needs sponsor

Andreas -- Amul is on vacation and will respond after his return, probably mid-week next week. Regards -- Bhaskar On 05/23/2013 05:18 AM (US Eastern Time), Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Amul, On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:44:39AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote: Hi Yaroslav, Thanks for checking in. We're in

Re: Packaging VistA - next package EWD

On 07/15/2012 09:50 AM, Luis Ibanez wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Karsten Hilbert mailto:karsten.hilb...@gmx.net>> wrote: > BTW, we recently had some discussion that three-letter packages / > binaries could quite easily lead to name space conflicts. I do not > see an act

Re: Packaging VistA - GT.M directories

On 07/14/2012 01:38 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Tille > wrote: I confirm that the questions Nicolas Barbier has asked in his replay to your mail are the same questions which are somehow bothering me as well (so I will no

Packaging VistA - GT.M directories

Although GT.M is very flexible when it comes to configuration - it is all managed with environment variables - configuring directories one way vs. another can make it easier or harder to manage configurations. Two points worth noting are: 1. The GT.M compiler produces .o object code modules f

Re: Packaging VistA - environments

M, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Bhaskar, thanks for your explicite explanation. I keep on trying to understand the big picture. Could you please try to inject the role of KIDS into the context below? Many thanks for your help Andreas. On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:33:02PM -0400, Bhaskar, K.S wr

Re: Packaging VistA - environments

On 07/11/2012 02:42 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: But unlike PostgreSQL, VistA environments may be chained and you can have trees of environments. Can you expand on "chain" and "trees" a little bit ? [KSB] Sure. Explaining the routine part is pretty simple. The VistA distributed as part of a

Re: Starting packaging VistA (Re: LSM in Geneva)

On 07/10/2012 01:05 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: Regarding creating a vista user and group: I don't think it matters at all whether it is overkill or not. The only thing that matters is whether we've got a clear use case for WHY we would like to do that - WHAT do we need a vista user/group for ?

Packaging VistA - environments

When an office suite is installed on a computer, one expects to type something like "soffice" and run it because (a) you only need one instance of it on the computer, (b) it does not need further configuration to run, and (c) you don't have complex shared editing where for example two people ma

Re: Packaging VistA - general comments

On 07/10/2012 04:57 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Bhaskar, thanks for your comments. On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:29:32PM -0400, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: For what it's worth, the name "VistA" is owned by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As the Microsoft OS is called "W

Packaging VistA - package names & use of /etc/alternatives

There are several flavors of VistA, just as there are multiple flavors of emacs and ksh. VistA flavors (and possible Debian package names) include: FOIA VistA (vista-foia), WorldVistA EHR (vista-worldvista-ehr or perhaps just worldvista-ehr), OSEHRA Vista (vista-osehra), OpenVista (vista-openv

Packaging VistA - general comments

I was on vacation last week with only limited bandwidth (personal and TCP/IP), and am only catching up now with the discussions on packaging VistA. I am putting my comments in separate threads for separate topics and will post several over the next day or so. This first thread is general comm

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/20/2012 03:26 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: Status Update: 1) The execution permissions problem has been solved. (it was due to a problem with LD_LIBRARY_PATH and fakeroot). Brad fixed it here: https://github.com/luisibanez/fis-gtm/commit/8dde79ed64efebc53e4ac2dbd6c4ed0c394e5286

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/19/2012 11:43 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: owned by root who is the one with ability to revert that anyways? [KSB4] Having installed files be read-only is good hygiene. I have heard that excessive sanitation leads to weaker immune system and

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

nary distribution because even if someone doesn't want to recompile GT.M (most users don't) they may want to recompile the encryption plugin to use openssl instead of libgrcypt, for example, or to tweak it to connect to their site's key management. Regards -- Bhaskar On Tue, 1

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/19/2012 10:59 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: $> strace -fF -o /tmp/123strace2.log $gtm_dist/mumps -direct It works for me if I add gtmroutines=$gtm_dist/libgtmutil.so to the environment. rright -- forgot about this one ;-) so many hidden precious env variables without any punishing m

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/19/2012 12:03 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: On 06/18/2012 02:42 PM, Brad King wrote: Here is a patch series that solves this problem. I've only done some lightweight/manual testing with this. The first patch refactors both i386 and x86_64 code paths that emit the path to the

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/18/2012 04:48 PM, Brad King wrote: On 06/18/2012 04:29 PM, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB2] Thank you very much, Brad. We would like to ask if you would be willing to solve the issue with one of two slightly different approaches from what you have implemented. I just provided the patches

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/18/2012 02:42 PM, Brad King wrote: On 06/18/2012 12:00 PM, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] I'll see about getting you that information - it is possible that none of the developers knows that answer right off the top of his head and some research will be needed. But be aware that you c

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/16/2012 11:03 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Thank you Bhaskar for the testing details! The will definetely be useful to provide at least a minimal test of having things built/installed correctly. My family keeps me heavily occupied this weekend so I will have a chance to look at it with

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 06/16/2012 11:43 AM, Luis Ibanez wrote: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko mailto:deb...@onerussian.com>> wrote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Luis Ibanez wrote: >A) We need to address a Post-Installation step >where some .m files are compiled in their

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

The only two architectures on which fis-gtm will be available are 32- and 64-bit on x86. Regards -- Bhaskar On 05/31/2012 08:42 AM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: Once there is a minimalistic working fis-gtm package we should upload it to "experimental". This allows us to pass the NEW queue time

Re: Any progress with FIS GT.M?

On 04/24/2012 04:19 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: I've spent a little time trying out the builds from GIT. I'm just a baby with GT.M and haven't really done any significant development with it. About the most I could hope to do is *maybe* figure something out with the 32 bit symbol name problems bu

Re: [MoM] Any progress?

On 03/21/2012 03:12 AM, Luis Ibanez wrote: Hi Andreas, Good news in the front of packaging fis-gtm: We can now build a set of libraries and most of the executables through a cmake-based configuration. [KSB] Excellent, Luis! <...snip...> Next step, is to review the composition of the l

Re: [MoM]: r9659 - trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm/trunk/debian

On 02/13/2012 03:56 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:09:27PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB2] I would recommend that Luis use approach B. Since he will always package gtminstall with GT.M, he does not need to strip the downloading part and he can use it as is. Sorry, he

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 02/13/2012 01:21 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:34:23AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] Since multiple GT.M versions/releases (for GT.M, they're the same) will routinely concurrently exist on systems, I would like to suggest a meta package fis-gtm, that own

Re: [MoM]: r9659 - trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm/trunk/debian

On 02/13/2012 01:24 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Bhaskar, On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:36:05AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: 1) Take advantage of the "package" target in the gtm Makefile, to select the binary files of interest to be included in an installation. 2) Take the

Re: [MoM]: r9659 - trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm/trunk/debian

On 02/13/2012 10:06 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Luis, On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:38:51AM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: This was my first lame attempt at making progress on the installation front :-) :-) Here was my reasoning: fis-gtm makefile provide a target called "package" that takes t

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 02/13/2012 03:25 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 05:39:10PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> Where should all these executables and files go ? In the default installation of GTM, the full collection of files go to: /usr/lib/fis-gtm/V5.4-002B_x86_

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 02/07/2012 12:49 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 12:05:21PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: $ head -n 10 sr_port/alias_funcs.c / * * * Copyright

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 02/07/2012 12:36 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 11:14:47AM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: In the mumps-clean machine, I had to install the following dependency packages: apt-get install libicu-dev apt-get install gnupg-doc apt-get install tcsh apt-get install zlib1g-dev apt-ge

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 02/07/2012 02:49 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Luis On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 10:56:57PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: MoM daily report. Thanks for the update. Here is the git branch where I have been adding the files generated during the configuration and build process of fis-gtm: https://git

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 02/01/2012 10:38 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Andreas Tille <mailto:andr...@an3as.eu>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 06:52:28PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > >I try to rephrase my suggestion. > > > >1. Download a

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/31/2012 04:16 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:40:22PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB3] <...snip...> [KSB2] Yes, as human readable source code - even if generated by a script from a text file - it should be DFSG free. But the devil's advocate argument i

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/31/2012 04:16 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:40:22PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: I can not imagine that finding a way to create a "small number" (can you give exact numbers please) should be that hard. For instance if you take the effort I took to dive fr

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/31/2012 05:26 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 04:25:29PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: The "problem" with bootstrapping is that Debian does not allow to use "foreign" binaries (that is, binaries not buildable on Debian) in order to build packages. There are exceptions f

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/30/2012 10:25 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:46:17AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: - GT.M is written in Mumps and thusly needs to be compiled by a Mumps compiler - this presents a chicken-egg problem in that Debian does not allow packages to be included

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/30/2012 10:19 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:46:17AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: In my opinion, if you really want to eliminate the bootstrap, the obvious solution is to use awk or perl for the small number of files involved. Or, for the initial bootstrap, just take

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/30/2012 08:20 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 06:14:29PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: So, when I install fis-gtm 5.3-017g today and next week Debian delivers a package containing the code for 5.5-000 will there be a way for me to upgrade my database/M code ? If so

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 05:48 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 04:50:56PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: Also, users routinely have multiple GT.M releases or versions installed on their computers, and multiple GT.M releases peacefully co-exist on the same computer. Like PostgreSQL 8.4

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 04:32 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:48:18PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] Actually, this is a good segue into another topic, packages and metapackages. We should have GT.M packages with names like fis-gtm-5.4-002b and a meta package fis-gtm that

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 04:20 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:23:21AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] GT.M is both a compiler that dynamically generates object modules from source modules, as well as a NoSQL database engine. The operation of a GT.M process is entirely

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 12:17 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Andreas Tille wrote: I admit I also stumbled about this $HOME/.fis-gtm issue but was to tired yesterday and forgot to bring this up in my response. (...) The alternatives system has the purpose to handle different alt

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 05:40 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:14:45AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: that launches GTM, and since it is the first time it runs, it creates a directory under $HOME/.fis-gtm I am EXTREMELY likely to wake sleeping lions here but this seems to hint at a fu

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 10:01 AM, Luis Ibanez wrote: Hi Andreas, On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Andreas Tille > wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:35:26AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > When the postinst ran it asked whether to use a local copy > of ICU or the sy

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 04:26 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:17:55AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: Just so it is not forgotten: Due to what Luiz posted the gtm package should probably depend on libicu* somehow. Just for the sake of interest: What is the exact sign for this dependen

Re: How Debian Packaging practices could apply to VistA maintenance and distribution

On 01/27/2012 02:07 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: A VistA Debian package is like a Linux installer ISO image. It's a tool that will let you create new VistA environments on your computer, So we only need one VistA Debian package, that contains

Re: How Debian Packaging practices could apply to VistA maintenance and distribution

On 01/26/2012 05:23 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:10:13AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: [KSB] Are there packages that are (for example) pure shell scripts so that there is no difference between a source package and a binary package? A VistA Debian package would be like

Re: How Debian Packaging practices could apply to VistA maintenance and distribution

On 01/26/2012 05:19 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: Hello Bhaskar, this is a really helpful explanation. Let me rephrase (and slightly change) it as to make sure we've understood: You attest to that VistA is, basically, on big dark BLOB sitting on the host OS which the host cannot know anything ab

Re: How Debian Packaging practices could apply to VistA maintenance and distribution

On 01/25/2012 04:52 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:49:03PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: A binary Debian package doesn't make sense: the object files will be Clarification: All *.deb packages are "binary packages" in terms of Debian slang. The contr

Re: How Debian Packaging practices could apply to VistA maintenance and distribution

On 01/24/2012 07:30 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:49:03PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> So, from a size point of view, VistA on the server side will be about the size of a pure-server GNU/Linux distribution. No problem. Want to run a ho

Re: How Debian Packaging practices could apply to VistA maintenance and distribution

Adding my two bits' worth, for what they're worth. First, the easy part. The mechanics of creating a Debian package of VistA will be completely straightforward. I know because I have created many VistA installers. VistA will be distributed as a large number of source program files and data

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/24/2012 05:08 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> Then went into the directory: cd debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/ cd fis-gtm-initial/trunk and got the source code with the command: make -f debian/rules get-orig-source That went smoothly, and returned the ou

Re: Plans for ITK version 4

On 01/24/2012 11:08 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: Maybe at some point we can brainstorm on this with you and Bhaskar off-line ? [KSB] Actually, we should use the list as much as possible so that the discussion is captured and archived

Re: Plans for ITK version 4

On 01/24/2012 06:45 AM, Luis Ibanez wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: As maintainer of the upstream project I will be more than happy to help solve any difficulty. Ahhh, ITK *and* GT.M upstream? Is this

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/23/2012 05:57 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:58:50PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] Even though both 32-bit and 64-bit GT.M for x86 are built from the same source code, the GT.M code generators are a couple of generations apart in design evolution. The code

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/23/2012 03:32 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Luiz, On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 02:52:08PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> If I understood Bhaskar correctly for amd64 *.o files can be linked to *.so files but for i386 this is not possible (I admit that I fail to understand why th

Re: [MoM] Regarding status of fis-gtm-initial package

On 01/23/2012 03:45 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 02:31:26PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] There are several MUMPS compilers, both free / open source and otherwise, but in terms of supporting a full MUMPS, there are only two, of which GT.M is the only one that is Free

Re: [MoM] Regarding status of fis-gtm-initial package

On 01/23/2012 02:01 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Andreas Tille wrote: IMHO that's pretty useless and thus I changed debian/rules to only install the tar which matches the architecture that matches the build system. There has been a discu

Re: [MoM] Regarding status of fis-gtm-initial package

On 01/23/2012 11:20 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:46:05AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: ## rmdir: failed to remove `TMPPOSTINST': Directory not empty dpkg: error processing fis-gtm-initial (--configure): subprocess inst

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/23/2012 03:09 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 06:12:34PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: ... The .tar.gz file is placed in the parent directory at: debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm-initial with name: fis-gtm-initial_54002B.orig.tar.gz Fine so far.

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/22/2012 04:06 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Bhaskar, On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:14:52PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: [KSB] We will work with Luis to make changes in the upstream packaging. The first thing which I would really love to see if the gtm tarballs would install into one single

Re: [MoM] Regarding status of fis-gtm-initial package

On 01/22/2012 05:16 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi, I had another look into fis-gtm-initial package and noticed that it creates a deb package containing two (=both available) binary tarballs contained in the source ball. IMHO that's pretty useless and thus I changed debian/rules to only install

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

Comments below. Look for [KSB]. Regards -- Bhaskar On 01/22/2012 03:21 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Luis, On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 04:45:48PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: [KSB] <...snip...> http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html Question: The policy document says that if I in

Re: fis-gtm

there, I overlooked it later with the volume of e-mail in my Inbox. Mea culpa. More comments below - look for [KSB3]. Regards -- Bhaskar On 08/02/2011 01:55 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Bhaskar, > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > [KSB3] <...snip...>

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/26/2011 10:20 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > > [KSB4] <...snip...> > > > The first process to open a database file sets up the interprocess > > communication control structures (e.g., sh

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/26/2011 10:19 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > > > [KSB3] OF course! Sorry, I am so close to GT.M that I may miss the fact > > that what is obvious to me may not be obvious to others. > > > > G

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/26/2011 02:17 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > Hi Bhaskar, > > > [KSB2] Historically, GT.M was installed as owned by user and group bin. > > Over the years (GT.M first went into production in 1986) and over the > > POSIX platforms to which it has been ported (including GNU/Linux, > > propriet

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/25/2011 01:52 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Bhaskar, > > sorry that I have so much questions, but I really want to understand your > philosophy. I copied paragraphs from some of your latest mails and put my > question/comment below: > [KSB2] I am glad to answer them! Sometimes answer

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/23/2011 02:03 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Laurent Parenteau wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Laurent Parenteau wrote: > >>> I think it would be better if the packages would have the version > number > >>> in the name, and maybe have fis-gtm depend

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/23/2011 06:07 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:44:40PM -0400, Laurent Parenteau wrote: > > > > Or do you really prefer something like postgresql? What about > > > bugfixes? If there is a version 1.2.003 in the repository, do you > > > provide bugfixes for such an ol

Re: Fwd: Re: fis-gtm

On 07/23/2011 06:38 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:55:27PM -0400, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > [KSB] <...snip...> > > > So, there is no special GT.M user. Period. > > In other words, GT.M is like SQLite (in that respect) ? > [KSB] I have

Re: fis-gtm

On 07/22/2011 04:44 PM, Parenteau, Laurent wrote: > > Thorsten, > > On 07/22/11 13:56, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Laurent Parenteau wrote: > >> I think it would be better if the packages would have the version number > >> in the name, and maybe have fis-

Re: Fwd: Re: fis-gtm

On 07/22/2011 01:38 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Baskar, > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Bhaskar, K.S wrote: > > > It looks like my e-mails to the group are still not getting through > > debian-med. > > at least I can see some email from you and Laurent in th

Fwd: Re: fis-gtm

It looks like my e-mails to the group are still not getting through debian-med. I sent this a half hour ago. Thank you very much in advance for your help. Regards -- Bhaskar Original Message Subject:Re: fis-gtm Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:52:49 -0400 From: Bhaskar

  1   2   >