| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | pcp updates: webd, hotproc, docs, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pcp updates: merge Frank (pmwebd) + Nathan (hotproc docs) + Martins (docs), Mark Goodwin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint, Lukas Berk |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |