On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:41:14 -0500 (EST), Nathan Scott wrote:
nathans> The idea is to allow development using pcp libraries, headers,
nathans> and perly/snakey bits without having to install pcp itself (and
nathans> hence have to worry about starting daemons and so on).
Ah, I've misunderstood the intent then - I was thinking that you were
trying to make life easier for the end user like it was done in the
past by unbundling Infiniband bits from the main package.
I was doing a "demo" of PCP and needed to install it on a VM which
doesn't have access to yum so getting all the prereqs was major pita.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:40:29 -0500, Frank Ch Eigler wrote:
fche> It's a judgement call as to how finely to subdivide the pcp packages.
fche> To partition the dependencies further, we'd need at least three new
fche> subpackages:
fche> - pcp-pmwebd (for the libmicrohttpd user)
fche> - pcp-python-tools (for pmatop, pmcollectl, etc.)
fche> - pcp-perl-tools (for the pmdas)
fche> It could get unsightly. Though at some point we might do this kind of
fche> thing, say if in the future we want to segregate pure
fche> agent/target-side stuff from clients.
>From my PoV the sooner the better - I really like the idea of having
"base" pcp with minimal prereqs and keeping "extras" for those who
need/want them.
max
|