Re: PCP trees for web and middleware development

[Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/25/2014 08:14 PM, Nathan Scott and Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
[...]

I've not had time to fully understand the issues being debated here,
but thought I'd chime in nevertheless ... AFAICT, the "1000's of lines
of C++ and javascript and associated images" are in effect a 3rd party
library package, and thus belong in a separate tree and should ship in
a separate package.

Other packages such as PCP, Zabbix, etc can then be configured with
appropriate build and run-time dependencies on that library package.
In this scheme, pmwebd is rightfully PCP code, and should be part of
PCP, albeit in a subpackage to isolate those new library dependencies
from the base packages. If a particular platform doesn't support
the new library or if the licensing terms are incompatible with a
particulasr distro, then it can be configured out of dependent builds
and the pcp-pmwebd subpackage will not ship for that platform.

Isn't this how we've always managed exotic library dependencies? Of
course the new package will need packaging review, a sponsor and
competent maintainership, but on-going that's no worse than the burden
as it stands at the moment.

my 2c :)

Cheers
-- Mark