pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp packaging split (was Re: [pcp] python-pcp git tree available)

To: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp packaging split (was Re: [pcp] python-pcp git tree available)
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:42:14 +1000 (EST)
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Werner <mtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1018821442.5112651242693706141.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
----- "Mark Goodwin" <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> yes that's correct. Looks like Fedora would only require that we
> split pcp into pcp and pcp-devel (with pcp-debuginfo as a
> by-product).
> If we do this, we can still utilize the Debian package lists, but
> just combine some of them to arrive at a suitable pcp and pcp-devel
> split.
> 
> So, should we split the pcp RPM packaging into pcp and pcp-devel?
> Ditto for pcp-gui?

I think thats fine, lots of packages becomes painful to manage, so
just that simpler split out would be good IMO.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>