pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: pmdasample source vs binary & QA testing

To: "'Nathan Scott'" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: pmdasample source vs binary & QA testing
From: "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:58:37 +1100
Cc: "'pcp developers'" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1006725141.6846584.1392337317261.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1603650868.6845934.1392337086261.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <1006725141.6846584.1392337317261.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQLFeMao2uqzwL862E/DIAPk6zI7LpjHoJDw
Thanks for the heads up Nathan.

We're already ahead of the game ... for about a decade the qa check script 
requires the sample and sampledso PMDAs to be working, and if not, makes it so.

After an upgrade to 3.9.0, the sample and sampledso PMDAs were installed but 
not working (as expected).  qa/check 0 fixed it all up.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Scott [mailto:nathans@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, 14 February 2014 11:22 AM
> To: Ken McDonell
> Cc: pcp developers
> Subject: pmdasample source vs binary & QA testing
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Just FYI - if doing any testing atm, as a result of the RPM "multilib" 
> changes,
> we no longer ship a pre-built version of pmdasample.  We ship source &
> makefile, like the other demo PMDAs now, which helps make the
> development packages architecture neutral of course.  So may need an
> ./Install in pmdas/sample (that automatically does the build) before you next
> run QA.
> 
> cheers.
> 
> --
> Nathan

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