Nathan Scott wrote:
So regarding PCP in distros ...
Debian is up-to-date
Suse needs a refresh
Fedora and Rhel need to eat their veggies.
Now that Marks at Redhat, hopefully we'll see that situation
rectified sooner rather than later.
yes an aim of mine will be to get PCP into Fedora and eventually
into RHEL. It will certainly help at sites with perf issues,
rather than relying on "good'ol sar", said as nicely as I can :-}
The main issue there is
the need to split the current pcp rpm into separate library
runtime, devel, and main pcp package.
I had a brief look at this last week. Nathan has already done
the packaging split for Debian, see debian/*.{install,dirs}
so it'd be a matter of hacking the RPM spec to create sub-packages
in a similar fashion :
# ls -1 debian/*.{install,dirs}
debian/libpcp3-dev.dirs
debian/libpcp3-dev.install
debian/libpcp3.install
debian/libpcp-gui1-dev.dirs
debian/libpcp-gui1-dev.install
debian/libpcp-gui1.install
debian/libpcp-mmv1-dev.dirs
debian/libpcp-mmv1-dev.install
debian/libpcp-mmv1.install
debian/libpcp-pmda3-dev.dirs
debian/libpcp-pmda3-dev.install
debian/libpcp-pmda3.install
debian/libpcp-trace2-dev.dirs
debian/libpcp-trace2-dev.install
debian/libpcp-trace2.install
(and then a catch-all for the base package)
But isn't that many packages a bit of an over-kill? I'm not sure of
the actual packaging policies for Fedora, but surely it would be
enough to have pcp, pcp-libs and pcp-devel (and similar for pcp-gui)
rather than a separate package and devel package for every library ...
or is *that* the policy?
We'd also want to move those files into the build directory since
they'd no longer be just for debian.
[cc: Eric since he's interested in this too]
Cheers
-- Mark
|