CCing the PCP list...
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:21:49PM -0400, Michael Werner wrote:
>
> It's way over 40k. Can you put the review copy up on the
> oss ftp drop?
Yeah, send me a copy and I'll stick it on oss.
> Currently, this is structured as a typical standalone python
> extension, built and installed via distutils. It is not dovetailed
> into the sgi sources or the build, install, or pkg process.
>
> Should it be dovetailled in? And, how and where?
I suppose it could do either...we could have it as a separate package to
build and install. Maybe that is the best way, as it would avoid having
to install python bits to compile PCP.
> A couple dependancy issues come immediately to mind.
>
> *) my extension uses the ctypes facilities, meaning python 2.5
> is required - or a lesser version plus a separate ctypes extension
Okay. The .deb or .rpm and build system can test for this, I'm sure.
> *) many appliances or embedded systems, which one might
> want to monitor, are likely to not have python at all.
A lot of embedded systems don't have perl either, so it's up to the
writer of the PMDA to decide which wrapper set to write their PMDA in...
mh
>
> - mtw
>
> On May 13, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Martin Hicks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 06:41:36PM -0400, Michael Werner wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> I've made some python wrappers for PCP. Who should I talk
>>> with about getting them posted on oss?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You should definitely post them to the mailing list. This will get the
>> experts involved and will allow us to review the code.
>>
>> If they're really big (the mailing list may have a 40kB limit) then
>> split the patch up or post it to a website.
>>
>> ...don't compress (zip, gzip) the patches you mail out. That makes it
>> easier to review in-line in a response.
>>
>> Sounds excellent Michael. I'm a fan of python, so I'd like to see your
>> wrappers in the tree.
>>
>> mh
|