pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint

To: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint
From: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:36:27 +1000
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0mr3rcnrtk.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <87bnk0wzn5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <877ft59dmo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mr3rcnrtk.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
On 04/23/2015 12:47 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

lberk wrote:

[...]  Just about every pmda except core ones have been split into
their own pcp-pmda-<name> package [...]

FWIW, I haven't been fond of the flock of numerous tiny subrpms for
tools like nagios-plugins-*, or texlive-*.  There is a real mental
overhead in juggling so many little things.  If the -purpose- of
subdivision is to minimize undesired dependencies, then one could lump
together pmdas with the same prereqs (say, all python ones).

Anyway, such detailed subdivision is to stay, perhaps the case could
be made that by the act of installing these rpms, a sysadmin must
really want them ... so include a pmda .NeedInstall file for each?

that's not going to be very practical if we ship the proposed uber
'install-everything' package. not unless we also implement deferred
initialization, i.e. all installed PMDAs are ./Installed by default,
but foo_init() would not be called until first fetch or other PMAPI
function involving the domain.

Regards
-- Mark

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