On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> BTw, I tweaked get-orig-source to use xz compression which saves 150MB.
>
>
Nice !
> >
> > Currently VistA is organized into Packages (at least at the file
> > representation level). There are about 125 Packages.
>
> I have no idea about VistA but I somehow have the gut feeling that the
> plan to put all this into one large package is not the best idea we had.
> It might be a better idea to have a 1:1 relation between the VistA
> packages and Debian packages. Please note that this is actually no
> suggestion based on knowledge about VistA organisation but as I said
> rather a gut feeling. Perhaps it is possible to establish some
> semi-automatic packaging mechanism (like it is for instance done for R
> packages).
>
>
This certainly deserves more brainstorming.
R packaging and Python packaging (with easy_install)
are definitely models that we should take a closer look at.
>
> What I also wonder: How did you decided about the versio number VistA
> 1.0?
>
>
Totally arbitrary ! :-)
I needed to put a number in the file, and...
there is not quite a "version" of VistA itself.
There are very specific versions of the individual VistA packages,
based on the number of KIDS patches that have been applied
to them, but not a version for the whole.
I'm happy to pick any other number to replace "1.0", which
certainly doesn't do justice to the > 30 years that VistA has
been around.
We could, equally arbitrarily use version "30.0"...
or use the number "2012" as a year ?
Open to suggestions...
Luis
