pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: python3 woes on f22

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: python3 woes on f22
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:45:19 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0mvbdltum7.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <5594A1B5.5090003@xxxxxxxxxx> <55A2FFBB.5000803@xxxxxxxxxx> <227885808.37023848.1436780775020.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0my4ikulyq.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <955515466.37555879.1436847748465.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150714115711.GG22361@xxxxxxxxxx> <305121480.38738777.1436917670865.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mvbdltum7.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: xs7TvdbR68wmU81CAU09tPewPf+HPQ==
Thread-topic: python3 woes on f22

----- Original Message -----
> > [...]
> > This does not affect dependencies being declared and satisfied in any
> > meaningful way - the argument is specious.
> 
> The argument is that it -does- affect the dependencies, because
> changing that pcp.conf value breaks them.

It seems you're just repeating the same thing over and over now.

"rm /usr/lib/libpcp.so" also "affects dependencies", like any number of
ill-chosen sysadmin actions - this is not convincing anyone in any way
that there's a problem here, sorry.

> > We have had literally the *exact* same situation for many years with
> > $PCP_AWK_PROG and its gawk package dependency. [...]
> 
> That just means that you have faced this issue before

("you"?  no, not me - but one of the other PCP maintainers, yes.)

> and went with the easier dependency-risking option.

Like I said, a specious argument - after so many years and not a single
real-world issue resulting from this "risk".  Its important for cross-
platform support in PCP that we have pcp.conf, and being able to override
those variables is sometimes very useful - these are not things that are
likely to change.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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