pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] pcp python patch

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] pcp python patch
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:11:05 -0500 (EST)
Cc: David Smith <dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0megss8ket.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <54512E80.9090302@xxxxxxxxxx> <546A44F0.1070001@xxxxxxxxxx> <207038253.507858.1416264783839.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <546A7EDD.9000009@xxxxxxxxxx> <134603578.1719924.1416389380267.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <546FB61C.2090103@xxxxxxxxxx> <1332365833.3983034.1416785912055.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0megss8ket.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: BbvF1KLN4KweT3ze4/eqBWO//Oh7bQ==
Thread-topic: pcp python patch

----- Original Message -----
> > [...]  but is there something special about this old perl
> pmda that makes this widespread cautionary verbiage moot?

Nope.

> (In this case, 88 happens to be hard-coded into the pmdasystemtap.pl instead
> of being supplied as a command line option.)

The script PMDAs don't process command line options.  They could, they
should, but they don't at this stage.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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