https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Scott <nathans(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Paul Colby from comment #12)
> for the base PCP packages, we were allowed to put the source in
with the
> PCP_PMDAS_DIR binaries, since they're demos and its a devel package, so
> consider relocating everything from pcp-pmda-cpp-examples into
> /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-cpp-examples.
Done. Though I replaced 'pcp-cpp-examples' with 'pcp-pmda-cpp-examples'
so
that the directory includes the full RPM package name - seems more
responsible that way :)
Ah, good idea.
I believe this should be fixed now, as I've moved the examples
under
$PCP_PMDA_DIR (aka %{_pmdasdir}), ie /var/lib/pcp/pmdas, which is owned by
the implicitly-required 'pcp' package.
(I haven't entirely groked the RPM file/dir ownership concepts though, so
might be missing something here)
Yep, I think your approach there is correct.
There's now a couple of, what I believe to be benign, warnings in
the
fedora-review output:
* Header files (*/domain.h) in the examples package - these are not C/C++
source header files, but rather, include files for the PCP "simple
preprocessor" (pmcpp).
* devel-file-in-non-devel-package *-examples/pmdas/*.cpp - as noted by
Nathan above, this follows the pre-existing convention of allowing example
source code to be included with example PMDAs. But if it bothers anyone,
I'm more than happy to simply leave those files out of the packages for now.
I agree - these are benign, and there is value in having these files remain
there. Since this is a development package (and we've done the same thing in
PCP itself), I'd recommend keeping it as-is.
It's all looking pretty good to me - Michael, Brad, did you guys see any
remaining issues in the latest version?
cheers.
--
Nathan
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component