phpgroupware-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Identifying apps stati - Was: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Status o


From: Olivier Berger
Subject: Re: Identifying apps stati - Was: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Status of the Debian packaging of phpGroupware
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:52:29 +0100

Le jeudi 21 février 2008 à 12:35 -0600, Chris Weiss a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Sigurd Nes <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Olivier Berger wrote:
> >  > Of course, in Core, I would see phpgwapi, setup, admin and preferences.
> >  >
> >  > For Maintained, the fewer we have, the better (Debian
> >  > packaging-wise ;) ?
> >  >
> >
> >  For 0.9.18 I would really appreciate to have at least 'addressbook', 
> > 'calendar', 'ged', 'hrm', 'manual', 'projects', 'property' and 'sms' in 
> > Maintained.
> >
> >  'syncml' might go in core ?
> >
> >  'email' / 'felamimail' ?
> 
> historically, addressbook, calendar, notes, and email are core.  the
> reason is that without them it's not much of a "groupware"
> 

OK, then I'd like to propose the following packaging for Debian :

phpgroupware = phpgroupware-core + addressbook, calendar, notes, and email
where :
phpgroupware-core = phpgwapi, setup, admin and preferences

Then there would be the option of installing only the 'application
server', i.e. only an empty placefolder to add custom applications, by
installing phpgroupware-core.

But one could for instance also install 'phpgroupware', which would
install the basic groupware apps.

phpgroupware-core would recommend phpgroupware, but without making it
mandatory.

This should help have something more manageable for the packager, in
case of security issues on the API+stuff without caring for maintenance
of the rest of the individual apps, IMHO.

One consequence is that we may base the packaging on two different set
of source packages, : phpgroupware-core and phpgroupware-groupware-apps
(or any other name meaning : addressbook, calendar, notes, and email)
maybe, in which we woud have splitted your sources. This would help
manage the security fix releases on one of each packages independently,
maybe.

What do you think ?

Best regards,
-- 
Olivier BERGER <address@hidden> (*NEW ADDRESS*)
http://www-inf.it-sudparis.eu/~olberger/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM / TELECOM & Management SudParis
(http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]