pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split

To: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split
From: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:58:24 +1000
Cc: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18963.53608.392274.913349@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4A1344EF.3050209@xxxxxxxxx> <1030099948.5173401242777448210.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18963.24331.154278.655650@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A13713A.4040507@xxxxxxxxx> <18963.53608.392274.913349@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
Max Matveev wrote:
"MG" == Mark Goodwin wrote:
I'm fine with them been in pcp-libs.

good, provided it's acceptable to have non-library executables
in a -libs package. Probably OK. I'd rather not have a -common.


MG> In any case, I agree on having pcp, pcp-libs and pcp-devel. A MG> preliminary patch is attached - this just picks stuff out of
 MG> the existing debian/*.install manifests.

I've had this long dream of changing the install rules to generate
manifest out of makefiles - you know, one source and all that. The
stuff you've done will work fine, it just not going to catch the new
bits been pushed out by make install but not added in the manifests.

yes it is - the base pcp package is catch-all. Anything not listed
ends up in that. We are still generating the manifest from make
rules. The lists pick stuff out to go in -devel or -libs, everything
else goes in the base package.

Cheers
-- Mark

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