>>>>> "nscott" == Nathan Scott writes
nscott> ----- "Mark Goodwin" <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Max Matveev wrote:
>> >>>>>> "MG" == Mark Goodwin writes:
>> > MG> yes that's correct. Looks like Fedora would only require
>> > MG> that we split pcp into pcp and pcp-devel (with
>> > MG> 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?
nscott> No, not for chroot builds - you would only want -libs and -devel.
nscott> Installing the main pcp package is the problem - it has the exitops
nscott> that take out a running pmcd on the build system... there's no good
nscott> reason to do that.
I may even decide not to run pcp on the build box to keep "pristine"
environment but I have to have shared libraries and headers if I want
And I really like to be able to get the newhelp without getting the
rest of the pcp: pmda developement almost forces me to run newhelp at
build time to catch any problems with the help files. I also need the
pmns utilities to futz with the namespace files: both can go into
pcp-libs or pcp-base or pcp-foundation or pcp-kitchen-sink-no-scripts.