Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[pcp\]\s+Source\s+and\s+binary\s+packaging\s+\-\s+future\s+directions\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Kevin Wang <kjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:23:40 -0800
From Nathan Scott Not knowing what's in there, I ask naievely: why not 'test' or 'tests'? - Kevin
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00002.html (11,233 bytes)

2. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:35:00 +1100
Why indeed. No reason I know of, QA (quality assurance) was the term used for testing on the pcp project from day 1 .... blame Ken, I guess. I could go with "tests" ... may make it easier to merge, b
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00003.html (7,841 bytes)

3. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Martin Hicks <mort@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:25:24 -0500
Nathan, You and I had already talked on IRC about many of these points. I think we're in agreement on all the other points. I'm not convinced that moving pcpqa back into the PCP tree is a good idea.
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00006.html (9,096 bytes)

4. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:27:52 +1100
Nathan, thanks for picking up the baton here. There is a multiple sense of deja vu here. Like company reorgs, changing the pcp packaging is one of those things that happens in a cyclic fashion and th
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00007.html (14,888 bytes)

5. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:40:23 +1100
General *nod* to all of the above. My main sticking point is pmdumptext. I want to have kmdumptext become pmdumptext, and have all C++ code in one place using the one library instead of dup'ing this.
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00008.html (13,588 bytes)

6. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:14:17 +1100
Nathan Scott wrote: On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 07:27 +1100, Ken McDonell wrote: ... Renaming kmchart -> pmchart and kmtime -> pmtime is fine if the sgi proprietary pieces are cremated. The original pmchar
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00009.html (11,350 bytes)

7. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:29:56 +1100
Also, I've been reworking the PCP web pages recently, for several reasons: - simplify - modernify - de-purplify - document the new packaging layout - introduce the new "PCP Glider" project - make it
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00010.html (9,896 bytes)

8. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:23:11 +1100
Nathan Scott wrote: On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:14 +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote: So, to sum up my current thinking: ... There's some new content (started on the online man pages, added some docs about PCP
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00011.html (11,606 bytes)

9. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:22:33 +1100
Done. May as well be consistent - can you make it dev? There should be (already) a stable tree there also... did that survive the cloning process? Oh, also be a good idea to check with Russell/Eric c
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00012.html (10,784 bytes)

10. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:10:19 +1100
I left the default branch named 'master' rather than renaming it to 'dev' like we have in the pcp tree. Let me know what you'd rather. May as well be consistent - can you make it dev? There should be
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00013.html (10,713 bytes)

11. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:04:51 +1100
nscott> - Renaming kmchart/kmtime -> pmchart/pmtime is fine with me. I nscott> will keep symlinks for backward compatibility, etc. Unless you plan to provide bug-to-bug compatibility between kmchart
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00014.html (9,236 bytes)

12. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:07:53 +1100
Independent of my deep egotistical reasons for voting to maintain the "km" prefix, I think Max has a very valid point here.
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00015.html (9,819 bytes)

13. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:33:24 +1100
kmchart provides pretty much the same command line options (it is platform independent, so deep-voodoo Xresource stuff isn't going to work) - but the options used were all based on either standard PC
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00016.html (10,897 bytes)

14. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:42:09 +1100
Yes, its for "Ken". kmchart/kmtime don't use any KDE libraries, and has no code specific to that particular desktop (does happen to build on the same Qt libraries, but thats coincidental AFAIK). chee
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00017.html (9,601 bytes)

15. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:36:32 +1100
The same users who we might be "helping" by not using a pmchart name, will just get left out in the no-pmchart-for-you cold, when SGI stops shipping the old one. So, I'm comfortable having a single p
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00018.html (11,330 bytes)

16. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:35:26 +1100
MG> BTW, Max, which bug-for-bugs in pmchart are you thinking of? MG> pmchart doesn't have any bugs ;-) Ok, WARs like counter-wrap detection in the fetchgroup code, GIF generation (can kmchart do that
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00019.html (9,278 bytes)

17. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:29:45 +1100
It honours PCP_COUNTER_WRAP, if thats what you mean? How many of the last-of-the-mohicans^Wpmcharticans do you really think rely on some particular counter-wrap handling anyway? kmchart^WThe new pmch
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00020.html (10,448 bytes)

18. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:05:31 +1100
NS> It honours PCP_COUNTER_WRAP, if thats what you mean? It was more then PCP_COUNTER_WRAP - I've had to fix a bug with gif generation (I think sometime around 2007) for people who do things which go
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00021.html (11,502 bytes)

19. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:17:55 +1100
Yes. Layout from the command line is very similar between the two. The worst part of the km* naming scheme is it was fine for just one binary, then kmtime came along, then kmquery, then dumptext got
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00022.html (11,254 bytes)

20. Re: [pcp] Source and binary packaging - future directions (score: 1)
Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:15:27 +1100
Nathan Scott wrote: ps: Fedora10 has changed rpm options/syntax/configs/... & the pcp/pcp-gui Makepkgs is b0rked - any interest in having a look, Max? You know this stuff better than anyone (Ken said
/archives/pcp/2009-02/msg00029.html (10,861 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu