pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp packaging split

To: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp packaging split
From: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:46:55 +1000
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18962.46349.841073.192575@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1602757131.5101411242688820054.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A11FF97.7010007@xxxxxxxxx> <18962.46349.841073.192575@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
Max Matveev wrote:
"MG" == Mark Goodwin writes:

 MG> yes that's correct. Looks like Fedora would only require that we
 MG> split pcp into pcp and pcp-devel (with pcp-debuginfo as a by-product).

Having pcp-libs will help with those pecky pcp killers installed in
the chroot jails: pcp-libs can be base for both pcp and pcp-devel, for
development you don't need to install the the whole package.

not sure how also splitting out pcp-libs would help. If you're doing
development, you want the whole package no matter what, for QA reasons at least, right? So IMO the right granularity is to install the base
package and if you're a developer, also install the -devel package.
The non-static libs are needed in both cases, so they might as well
just live in the base package.


BTW, Nathan, should newhelp be in a devel package?

PMDA Install scripts that want to build the compiled help
text will need it. Similar problem as some of /usr/include/pcp
needing to be in the base package.

Cheers
-- Mark

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