nod.
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 12:34 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> ----- "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > As to the packaging of the import tools, I've read the later mail
> > exchange between Mark and Nathan and suggest we have just one
> > package, possibly pcp-import, that includes _all_ of the import tools,
> > a pmimport wrapper if that is needed (unsure of this as yet), and
> > dependencies for _all_ of the tools ... some will be Perl modules
> > from CPAN, some may be binary modules like sysstat ... remember
> > some of the tools will be in Perl, but some might be in C.
> >
> > This avoids polluting other PCP packages with unusual dependencies,
> > at
> > the cost of getting all the prereqs satisfied if you want to install
> > the
> > pcp-import package. And it prevents packages multiplying like
> > rabbits.
>
> I think this would be OK - having a "core" import package for the
> majority of things, with dependencies on not-too-outlandish things
> (like Perl spreadsheet & XML modules). I still think we will end
> up with the need for specialist import packages outside of this -
> it just wont be workable for something to depend on, say, Oracle
> and Sybase, and SQLServer libraries, for example - I think people
> will rightly cry-foul at that.
>
> The hybrid system we now have for PMDAs - where "core" PMDAs with
> not-too-exotic dependencies live in core PCP, and things like
> infiniband and cluster have moved out to their own packages, seems
> like the right approach here too.
>
> cheers.
>
|