pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Comments regarding pcp_3.11.3_amd64.changes

To: Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comments regarding pcp_3.11.3_amd64.changes
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: PCP Development Team <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1bJmqv-0001Sf-EU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1bJmqv-0001Sf-EU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 4v9YdATSk5SOyfcp+ueEq6zIPAE4Yg==
Thread-topic: Comments regarding pcp_3.11.3_amd64.changes

----- Original Message -----
> Hi Nathan,
> 
> I marked your package for accept, but please take care of all lintian errors
> like:
>  E: pcp source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version
>  dpkg-dev [build-depends: dpkg-dev]
>  E: pcp source: build-depends-on-build-essential build-depends
>  E: pcp source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version g++
>  [build-depends: g++]
> 

Great, thanks Thorsten - and yep, I'll clean those up in the next upload.

In the next version of PCP there's likely to be a new pcp-export-influxdb
sub-package ... I wonder if there's any way we can streamline these pcp sub
package additions to the Debian archive?  (or is it OK as-is?)

I could send you a note describing just the new sub-package details if that
helps?  (everything else is likely to be as before in terms of packaging,
licensing, etc - re-reviewing all of PCP may not be required & is probably
quite time consuming for you).

Anyway, lemme know if there's anything I can do to make that process easier.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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