pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: python3 woes on f22

To: Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: python3 woes on f22
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:47:50 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150714115711.GG22361@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5594A1B5.5090003@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mbnfhvx03.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <55A2FFBB.5000803@xxxxxxxxxx> <227885808.37023848.1436780775020.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0my4ikulyq.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <955515466.37555879.1436847748465.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150714115711.GG22361@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: kEWn6ZbjWuFvhOyPRLZQLBiVWodOyA==
Thread-topic: python3 woes on f22

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> # this is a packaging decision (so dependencies can be declared &
> # satisfied) rather than a sysadmin whim.

This does not affect dependencies being declared and satisfied in any
meaningful way - the argument is specious.  We have had literally the
*exact* same situation for many years with $PCP_AWK_PROG and its gawk
package dependency.

> So, with choice of python interpreter being a run-time alternative,
> how do you intend to address dependencies?

Same with everything else in pcp.conf, all of which are already "run-
time alternatives".

Of course the package dependencies must be met for the default values
and that is all that's needed here.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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