Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint

[Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/07/2015 12:39 PM, Mark Goodwin wrote:
[[..] One last nit: surely pcp-debuginfo
> requires pcp or at least pcp-libs and so should be in the compat list?
> There's no point having an old mismatching pcp-debuginfo after an upgrade.
> I'll make this change too if nobody objects.
after a bit more investigation ..

this would result in pcp-debuginfo being installed regardless of
whether it was already installed, which isn't desirable. The real
problem is that debuginfo should probably (but doesn't) depend on
the same version of the base package, so it would be upgraded when
the base package is upgraded. But the %package specification for
debuginfo packages is part of the rpm system macros and I don't see
any way to override that (see /usr/lib/rpm/macros) without resorting
to a gross hack.

In any case, it's pretty much orthogonal to what we're trying to
achieve with the package split.

Lukas, what's the plan for deb packaging, and the fedora SPEC?

-- Mark