Hi Lukas,
----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> I've focused the changes within pcp.spec.in to start, so to try out the
> changes, simply ./Makepkgs on a fedora or centos box.
Its looking pretty good I reckon, and the meta-packages are very helpful.
Couple of small nits in the attached patch, mostly small stuff.
The one real issue there is the pcp-libs Requires: pcp-compat - I don't
really follow that, and it'd seem like it might cause problems. For the
case where someone has *only* pcp-libs installed before an upgrade (e.g.
maybe they have built a monitor tool that depends on libpcp.so) - would
this not pull in everything, instead of only the new -libs?
> Just about every pmda except core ones have been split into their own
> pcp-pmda-<name> package, and on systems that already have a stable pcp
> release (fedora 22 and older or centos 7 and older) there is a
> pcp-compat package. This pcp-compat will ensure all the new subpackages will
> be installed by default. This way there is no broken/missing elements
> after an upgrade.
In the patch I shifted the pcp-compat Requires to pcp but I suspect that
may not be the right way to go either - not sure.
> I've been careful to test qa after splitting off pmdas of each language
> (python, perl, and C, respectively), and there is various updated qa
> bits to match that. As it currently stands, I have no regressions on my
> local runs.
Nice. There may be some tests that warrant new _notrun() checks, going
forward, since more components (esp PMDAs) are now becoming optional.
> I've also added a %post hook to build the pmns (and removes the
> .NeedRebuild file if successful). I explicitly tested this by making
> sure to nuke /var/lib/pcp* and running the full testsuite (also manually
> checked the pmns before and after adding that hook, no difference).
We might need to mark %ghost on .NeedRebuild? (I think rpmlint complains
otherwise, from memory)
cheers.
--
Nathan
spec.patch
Description: Text Data
|