Thanks Julien, On 11 January 2012 05:49, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 13:32:18 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > On 10 January 2012 09:19, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Note that the presence of /etc/pcp.conf in libpcp3 is a RC bug of its > > > own. > > > > > > > Oh... hmm ... signficant parts of it (libpcp API) wont work without it > > though, whats the prefered approach there? > > > I can think of 3 approaches, there may be others... You could fix the > library to behave sanely without configuration, There'd be fairly invasive code changes needed to do that, and much diversion from upstream, so can't really see that approach being viable in this case. > move pcp.conf to a separate package, That's possibly the best (well, most straightforward to achieve) of the three options. I think. > or rename it to something that includes the library > version. Not 100% sure what you mean ... do you mean rename pcp.conf to something including the library version? Ah, I see - the underlying issue is this doesn't allow multiple versions of libpcp to be installed simultaneously right? Probably in that order of preference. The same goes for > /usr/include/pcp/* btw, that has nothing to do in a shared library > package. > > *nod* ... I need to look into the history of why that was done and what the fallout might be ... but I'm leaning toward your separate package approach as the most direct route to achieving this. Thanks for the tips, -- Nathan
