pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:35:49 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <506527158.18237145.1393551642685.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <530F9B64.4080505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <722030351.18148411.1393537152651.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FDAE6.5070308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <506527158.18237145.1393551642685.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 28/02/14 12:40, Nathan Scott wrote:


----- Original Message -----
Are these distros without microhttpd really current? ...

Yes ... MOST of the debian-derived ones in my QA farm ... sigh.
[...]
Er, no. Not that I can see from using the official package repositories.

I don't "get" how this can be, unless these distros are actively removing
packages (which defeats alot of the point of using debian/ubuntu); a search
on packages.debian.org shows all stable releases (even "oldstable" - now
many many years old), have *some* form of libmicrohttpd ...
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libmicrohttpd&searchon=names&suite=oldstable&section=all
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libmicrohttpd&searchon=names&suite=stable&section=all

So far, they all have _some_ form libmicrohttpd ... but the pcp-webapi code _depends_ on functionality that is not present in the older versions of the library (the PCP code will not compile!), and the revision the pcp code has been written to is not available in the older distros ... e.g the versions in oldstable debian

<rant>
probably because the developers of libmicrohttpd follow the open source view (unlike the sgi irix 6.5 view) that breaking the API/ABI is fine and to hell with backwards compatibility, which I'm guessing prevents backporting to older distros and leaves them stuck with older versions of the library
</rant>

So, how can this be possible?  It doesn't make sense that they would remove
packages like this - perhaps there is a "libdevel" section elsewhere for
these distributions thats not in the default /etc/apt/sources.list?  The
current "stable" Debian release has the needed bits, and Debian has always
been notoriously slow between stable releases.

Perhaps we are testing the lunatic fringe a bit here - are there any Ubuntu
or Debian releases in the QA farm that lack needed support?  AFAICT, there
should not be any.

I don't think we (er, I mean I) are/am on the lunatic fringe here ... we're more like innocent by-standers at the edge of the lunatic fringe ... 8^)>

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