On 2016/05/20 21:25, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > > On Friday, May 20, 2016 20:10 CEST, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 2016/05/20 19:59, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've finally got pnp4nagios running for me with icinga2, and now would > > > like to get this icinga2 flavor up and running ;) > > > > > > The icinga2 is only touching the RUN_DEPENDS, and the location > > > where the default perfdata dir located is. > > > > > > Alternatively, instead of a FLAVOR, maybe the RUN_DEPENDS > > > to icinga, and icingaweb could just be dropped, and the admin > > > is going to install/use whatever he prefers? > > > > Yep, a flavour to just change RUN_DEPENDS is a bit pointless. > > So if the perfdata path is just for the default setting and it > > can be overridden in config, it would be better to just add a > > note to the README explaining what to do. > > > > Also I think that there's no advantage to having a separate > > README-cgi and README-main for this port, it would probably be > > more sensible to roll them into a single README-main file. > > Alright, removed the RUN_DEPENDS, and dropped the FLAVOR. > I did not merged the README into a single file. I think the separation > is clearer, one takes care about configuration of the daemon, and > connection to the monitoring backend, the other file of the connection > to the frontend. > Does that make sense?
It doesn't really make sense to me. Why would you need to look in two different pkg-readme files to configure one piece of software? Especially now you duplicated information between the two files. I think the only reason for the separate packages is because it's annoying to handle PLIST when you have files under two different prefixes.
