pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Lukas Berk <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87wq0uj1c8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <87bnk0wzn5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <877ft59dmo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <1344838118.4507317.1429675359315.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <87pp6n7u7g.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <2089951493.8763144.1430262734221.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <87wq0uj1c8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 26ZaPb5oFaygMvaZEhZ8e05f8CwYRw==
Thread-topic: Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint

----- Original Message -----
> >> interested in installing every pcp package, wildcarding "pcp-*" will
> >> work.
> > Neat - always the exceptions to the rule though I guess, with python* &
> > perl* module package naming conventions.
> 
> Yes, but those should get pulled in via package dependencies anyways, no?
> At least with the pcp-pmda* packages I've create, they require the
> proper perl/python pmda bindings.

Yep - the python2/3 split leaves one of those two as an optional install, but
that's just splitting hairs.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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