pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split

To: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split
From: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:46:16 +1000
Cc: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4A13713A.4040507@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <4A1344EF.3050209@xxxxxxxxx> <1030099948.5173401242777448210.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18963.24331.154278.655650@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A13713A.4040507@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> "MG" == Mark Goodwin wrote:

 MG> Max Matveev wrote:
 >> 
 >> 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
 >> to build.

 MG> *and* you also need tools such as newhelp, pmns utils, etc., some of 
 MG> which are also needed in production environments where pcp-devel will
 MG> not be installed. So they'll either have to go in pcp-libs or we also
 MG> need a pcp-common package ...

I'm fine with them been in pcp-libs.

 MG> In any case, I agree on having pcp, pcp-libs and pcp-devel. A 
 MG> preliminary patch is attached - this just picks stuff out of
 MG> the existing debian/*.install manifests.

I've had this long dream of changing the install rules to generate
manifest out of makefiles - you know, one source and all that. The
stuff you've done will work fine, it just not going to catch the new
bits been pushed out by make install but not added in the manifests.

max

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