Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[pcp\]\s+pcp\s+packaging\s+split\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[pcp\]\s+pcp\s+packaging\s+split\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:38:05 +1000 (EST); Yes! And we can remove the /etc/init.d/pcp script hack to try to work around that, then (the bit that figures out the path to the running pmcd's logfile). Probably not, I guess, for the same reasons; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00067.html (9,052 bytes)
2. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:57:28 +1000 (EST); No, not for chroot builds - you would only want -libs and -devel. Installing the main pcp package is the problem - it has the exitops that take out a running pmcd on the build system... there's no go; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00069.html (9,139 bytes)
3. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:38:19 +1000; nscott> No, not for chroot builds - you would only want -libs and -devel. nscott> Installing the main pcp package is the problem - it has the exitops nscott> that take out a running pmcd on the buil; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00070.html (10,256 bytes)
4. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:55:54 +1000; I may even decide not to run pcp on the build box to keep "pristine" environment but I have to have shared libraries and headers if I want to build. *and* you also need tools such as newhelp, pmns ut; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00071.html (15,263 bytes)
5. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:59:45 +1000 (EST); IMO, doing pmda development (as in, writing and debugging, not building) forces you to run pmcd. Which means you need the "main" pcp package, not just the -devel package. cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00072.html (8,316 bytes)
6. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:43:00 +1000; nscott> IMO, doing pmda development (as in, writing and debugging, nscott> not building) forces you to run pmcd. Me - yes, people building the tree where I choose to park my pmda - no, they need as; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00073.html (9,371 bytes)
7. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:46:16 +1000; MG> *and* you also need tools such as newhelp, pmns utils, etc., some of MG> which are also needed in production environments where pcp-devel will MG> not be installed. So they'll either have to go; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00074.html (10,074 bytes)
8. Re: [pcp] pcp packaging split (score: 1): Author: Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:58:24 +1000; good, provided it's acceptable to have non-library executables in a -libs package. Probably OK. I'd rather not have a -common. MG> In any case, I agree on having pcp, pcp-libs and pcp-devel. A MG> pr; /archives/pcp/2009-05/msg00075.html (10,963 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]