Hi Brian,
sorry for posting via list, but it might be that your mailing system
is broken ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:18:30 +0800
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
pipe to |IFS+' ' && exec /usr/bin/procmail -f- || exit 75 #user
generated by brian@localhost
"IFS+'" command not found for address_pipe transport
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from debian
([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost ident=brian)
by debian with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 170zzy-0000br-00
for <brian@localhost>; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:18:30 +0800
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from net-yan.com [210.0.128.245]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for brian@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:18:30 +0800 (HKT)
Received: (qmail 53146 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 07:09:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Ulm.bund.de) ([194.95.179.208]) (envelope-sender
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 26 Apr 2002 07:09:26 -0000
Received: (from root@localhost)
by Ulm.bund.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04264
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:09:19 +0200
From: "Tille, Andreas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:08:00 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian and FreePM
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Brian Walker wrote:
> The issue was one of getting FreePM to work in the debian environment. I look
> forward to a specific debian package, as my solution was to remove Debian's
> zope 2.5.0-3 and use the version of zope provided in FreePM.
This removes Zope from the Debian BTS and security system. You will not
be able to obtain security fixes via apt and this is not acceptable for
a system in production in my opinion.
> The point about permissions should be stressed in the documentation, I feel.
> Applying Manager, Physician and Provider to my account solved that problem in
> a flash.
Sorry - I have to admit that I never really worked with FreePM (nor that
I ever will have the time to do it in the future because I'm no practician).
Thus I do not know anything about you talk here. It's an upstream issue in
my opinion.
Just to make clear: I'm a phyicist (= no medical background at all) working
as software ingeneer in a medical institut (Robert Koch-Institute, Germany).
Beeing a Debian developer for four years I felt that free medical software
is in a bad state (many projects of different states hard to install and
integrate - quite impossible for non-technical stuff) and wanted to do
anything against this situation. Thus I started Debian-Med. I just
care about the technical installation process. Users have to stress test
those packages and have to report bugs. If they will not take the task
to report bugs - I can't do anything.
> Andreas, should you be able to create that package,
I think I will just start with all prerequisites like BTreeFolder and
others. If these are tested and prooved their functionality we can
build a FreePM package which just contains FreePM code.
> I would very much like to
> know what you did, so that I can understand the structure both of FreePM and
> Debian zope on a woody instrallation.
Currently I did nothing than just building the BTreeFolder package which
works on a Woody system. To make one point clear: FreePM has no chance
to be integrated into Woody because we are in deep freeze and Woody will
be released in the near future. But we can make it *work under* Woody
now and it has good chances to be integrated into Woody+1 if people
support my work on it.
> Integration into Debian must be
> priority, as using this program in my office will require maximum stability.
Right - that's why I try to explain in detail the problems we have. It would
not be a problem to make *any* package from FreePM (just putting all in one
huge package which just *Conflicts* Debians own Zope package and install its
own could be perhaps done in a short time). But Debian people alway want to
make things don *right*.
> Now - about the documentation - how can I help you further? <volunteer status
> being signalled>
Just try to follow my latest mail in response to your try to install FreePM
on Zope. Just sort out those packages which are not native FreePM and have
different upstream sources. Make a checklist of those prerequisites
(perhaps including version numbers which are known to work or known to
conflikt). This checklist should be marked by tags like
inlcuded in Debian
included in Debian but wrong version
has to be packaged for Debian
I will have a look at this list and try to find Debian developers on the
Debian-Med list who would like to take over those packages (I guess it
will be a list of Zope products) or just give them a trial myself.
TEST those packages like BTreeFolder (and other preliminary packages
other developers or I builded) together with FreePM. I will not put
any untested software into the official Debian archive. If I hear
your OK we can quickly tickmark the list I proposed above and just can
package the native FreePM without any third party software which will
be outside Debian bug tracking control.
Kind regards
Andreas.
_______________________________________________
FreePM Support List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freepm-discuss
