pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp updates: some build/package re-jigging and QA

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp updates: some build/package re-jigging and QA
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:54:41 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <563949B8.9020604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <563949B8.9020604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 3P3GJc0LYQyRYUakUFcCTloCaPawUg==
Thread-topic: pcp updates: some build/package re-jigging and QA
Hi Ken,

----- Original Message -----
> Note, this the the way I think optional components should be handled
> throughout the build and packaging scripts.
> 

Looks good to me.  As discussed the other day, seems we're all agreeing
that the build/rpm/GNUmakefile should stop generating pcp.spec and it'd
be fine to have configure do that (simpler); I'll add it to the Janitor
task list.

Oh, one small thing - we found awhile back that we *must* generate the
man pages for all PMDAs into pcp-doc RPM.  This was because without 'em
we end up generating a noarch package (doc) that differs between arches
(papi was the cause originally - not supported on all arches - but it's
possible other sub-packages could cause the same issue).

As a result, we always install man pages for everything we possibly can
(incl. pmdapapi - which was removed here if !papi) ... so I'll add the
logic to continue to install man pages unconditionally as before, if
that's OK?  (will commit shortly, but lemme know if thats not desirable
for some reason - thanks).

cheers.

--
Nathan

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