pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp packaging split

To: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp packaging split
From: Michael Werner <mtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:06:31 -0400
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1886941665.5117341242697837956.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1886941665.5117341242697837956.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On May 18, 2009, at 9:50 PM, Nathan Scott wrote:


----- "Michael Werner" <mtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From an IT admin perspective, it would be nice to have the
packages also split along client server lines. This would
reduce the installation of unneeded software - a matter
such fellows often obsess over.

Has there been any talk or consideration of this, before
my recent arrival?


They pretty much are split that way now - pcp vs pcp-gui.
The base PCP package does have some monitoring tools (all
console tools) - but often they are needed on the server
side too (pminfo/pmprobe are used in PMDA installs, for
example, pmie/pmlogger are run on servers too, etc).

pmdumptext was moved into pcp-gui for this reason, it is
C++ code, uses libpcp_pmc and Qt now.  So, we no longer
have any C++ code in the pcp package anymore and certainly
no GUI code.  IMO, the split is as good as it can get now.
Did you have other tools in mind that are in base pcp but
should not be?


No. That all sounds fine. I overlooked the pcp-gui pkg. It's
new since when I last paid much attention to this, when
everything used to come in just one package.

- mtw

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: pcp packaging split, Michael Werner <=