Nathan Scott wrote:
----- "Mark Goodwin" <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yes that's correct. Looks like Fedora would only require that we
split pcp into pcp and pcp-devel (with pcp-debuginfo as a
by-product).
If we do this, we can still utilize the Debian package lists, but
just combine some of them to arrive at a suitable pcp and pcp-devel
split.
So, should we split the pcp RPM packaging into pcp and pcp-devel?
Ditto for pcp-gui?
I think thats fine, lots of packages becomes painful to manage, so
just that simpler split out would be good IMO.
cheers.
Ok, I have a patch that implements the split and will post it soon
(maybe tomorrow). There is some fall-out that probably also affects
Debian, e.g. with the current debian/*-dev.install files and with
pcp installed, but *without* pcp-devel installed :
[/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/simple]# ./Install
You will need to choose an appropriate configuration for installation of
the "simple" Performance Metrics Domain Agent (PMDA).
collector collect performance statistics on this system
monitor allow this system to monitor local and/or remote systems
both collector and monitor configuration for this system
Please enter c(ollector) or m(onitor) or b(oth) [b]
Updating the Performance Metrics Name Space (PMNS) ...
Compiled PMNS contains
161 hash table entries
684 leaf nodes
112 non-leaf nodes
6665 bytes of symbol table
Install simple as a daemon or perl or dso agent? [daemon]
PMCD should communicate with the simple daemon via a pipe or a socket?
[pipe]
Terminate PMDA if already installed ...
Installing files ...
Makefile:23: /usr/include/pcp/builddefs: No such file or directory
Makefile:39: /usr/include/pcp/buildrules: No such file or directory
gmake: *** No rule to make target `/usr/include/pcp/buildrules'. Stop.
Install: Arrgh, "/usr/bin/gmake install" failed!
Shouldn't be hard to fix of course :)
Cheers
-- Mark
|