pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:24:15 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0m4n3kylqe.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <530F9B64.4080505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <722030351.18148411.1393537152651.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FDAE6.5070308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <506527158.18237145.1393551642685.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FF605.2000809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1180352175.18258965.1393556591992.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0m4n3kylqe.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: dqoaNCdObLL3c2E5UmHioZTQfvrRZA==
Thread-topic: pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round

----- Original Message -----
> > From looking in the <microhttpd.h> header, we prefer
> > MHD_create_response_from_buffer over MHD_create_response_from_data
> > (which is still present, but marked as deprecated in the header).
> > Could we possibly support either API?  [...]
> 
> I don't know, maybe.
> 
> Or we could declare that debian oldstable is too old to build pmwebd,
> and give that a separate .deb .dsc file, so it doesn't even try.

*nod* - there are many possible ways to tackle this.  Conditionally doing
the packaging is what was being tried but its proving problematic (and it
is obviously not ideal for people on older platforms), so alternatives
are being sought.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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