[Bug 513896] Review Request: pcp - performance monitoring and collection service

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513896


Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(mgoodwin@xxxxxxxx |
                   |om)                         |




--- Comment #19 from Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>  2009-09-01 20:12:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Jarod, thanks - I think I've addressed most of your questions, apart
> > from the C source files, which I'll get to early next week if not sooner.
> 
> Just checking in to see where we're at on this. I think I was waiting to hear
> back on this part before doing another (hopefully the last) pass over things.  

Hi Jarod, thanks for checking back - sorry I've been completely snowed under
with other stuff. I've moved the C source to a better place and have just a few
things left to clean up, so I'll make a concerted effort on that front :)

We also had a discussion on freenode.net #pcp about what to do with the Perl
binding for PCP. Perhaps you could provide some guidance here for the packaging
perspective - the perl binding is part of the main src tree (below src/cpan)
but the packaging is currently driven by MakeMaker (with a manual step to build
the pcp perl RPMs from the resulting spec). Ideally, we'd like the perl binding
to be a sub-package, e.g. "pcp-perl-this-and-that", with the build and
packaging all driven by the main spec. I have some simple changes to the spec
that implements this but it probably violates the Fedora Perl packaging
guidelines - anything perl'ish should be named "perl-something". So the only
way to resolve that would be to run MakeMaker in %build or %install and to
generate additional perl-pcp-something RPMs that way ... which seems hacky.

Any advice? maybe we should split the PCP perl binding into a separate src
tree, with appropriate BuildRequires dependencies?

Cheers
-- Mark

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]