Bug#406766: Re: Bug#406766: Cacti plugin architecture
tags 40676 - patch stop Hello On 01/-9/-28163 02:59 AM, crig...@criggie.dyndns.org wrote: On 28/12/11 04:01, Jean-François Masure wrote: Upstream now includes a patched version of source files with the plugin architecture for the new 0.8.7i http://www.cacti.net/downloads/cacti-0.8.7i-PIA-3.1.tar.gz it should now be easier to include it with the Debian package. There might be some users who don’t want the Plugin Architecture included (anyone ?), so you may want to have a « PIA-free » and a « PIA-enabled » package. As it would require double packaging effort for the maintainer, I’m ok for a PIA-enabled only approach. Any toughts ? I'd like the PIA included installed in the package please. Its such a pita to add later that I no longer bother with updates to cacti. I suggest we should create two binary: - cacti which do not have plugin-architecture - cacti-pia which have plugin architecture (with pathces?) have Replace: cacti in debian/control to do so, we must declare build process twice and it's pretty difficult. I think if we include plugin-architecture in normal cacti packages it not good idea Current debian/rules are located in here: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-cacti/cacti.git;a=blob;f=debian/rules;hb=HEAD what your suggest? patch welcome -- [ Mahyuddin Susanto ] - http://udienz.web.id GPG: 4096R/90B36C5B Debian Maintainer - www.debian.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#406766: Cacti plugin architecture
Upstream now includes a patched version of source files with the plugin architecture for the new 0.8.7i http://www.cacti.net/downloads/cacti-0.8.7i-PIA-3.1.tar.gz it should now be easier to include it with the Debian package. There might be some users who don't want the Plugin Architecture included (anyone ?), so you may want to have a « PIA-free » and a « PIA-enabled » package. As it would require double packaging effort for the maintainer, I'm ok for a PIA-enabled only approach. Any toughts ?
Bug#406766: Cacti plugin architecture
On 28/12/11 04:01, Jean-François Masure wrote: Upstream now includes a patched version of source files with the plugin architecture for the new 0.8.7i http://www.cacti.net/downloads/cacti-0.8.7i-PIA-3.1.tar.gz it should now be easier to include it with the Debian package. There might be some users who don’t want the Plugin Architecture included (anyone ?), so you may want to have a « PIA-free » and a « PIA-enabled » package. As it would require double packaging effort for the maintainer, I’m ok for a PIA-enabled only approach. Any toughts ? I'd like the PIA included installed in the package please. Its such a pita to add later that I no longer bother with updates to cacti. -- Criggie http://criggie.org.nz/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#406766: cacti plugin architecture patch
ah, you should try patching the source package instead of the binary package. try: apt-get build-dep cacti apt-get source cacti cd cacti-version do your patching stuff here dpkg-buildpackage sean Dear Sean, Your procedure don't work. An error report with dpkg-buildpackage after patching cacti with cacti-plugin-0.8.6i.diff Really, this patch give any funcionalities to cacti and it is very important. This plugin is reported in cacti site forum, so i believe that is OK for cacti developers. Think put this patch in cacti debian package. Thanks Paulo Flickr agora em português. Você clica, todo mundo vê. http://www.flickr.com.br/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#406766: Cacti plugin architecture
could you be more specific on what you mean by quite significant changes? not counting the official patches from cacti.net, the version in unstable only differs by 9 lines or so. I didn't look very well in this, but because you made some changes to the structure of the cacti directory (split it in resources and site and moved a part of the configuration to /etc/cacti), you can't patch with the plugin architecture. i'm not against adding it, though i don't have a lot of time to evaluate it either. since this is a third party patch (though there's lots of reference to it in official cacti documentation) i'd like to hear from one of the main cacti devs about what they think of it as well. of course if someone helped out to lessen my workload on either of these fronts (providing a patch and/or contacting the upstream author) it would certainly help things along. I have very little experience with php, nor with package maintaining, but I will contact the cacti authors about this. I'll let you know what they think about it. Greets, Dennis
Bug#406766: Cacti plugin architecture
On Saturday 18 August 2007 03:21:19 am Dennis Devriendt wrote: could you be more specific on what you mean by quite significant changes? not counting the official patches from cacti.net, the version in unstable only differs by 9 lines or so. I didn't look very well in this, but because you made some changes to the structure of the cacti directory (split it in resources and site and moved a part of the configuration to /etc/cacti), you can't patch with the plugin architecture. ah, you should try patching the source package instead of the binary package. try: apt-get build-dep cacti apt-get source cacti cd cacti-version do your patching stuff here dpkg-buildpackage sean signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#406766: Cacti plugin architecture
hi, (forwarding this to the existing bug report) On Thursday 16 August 2007 12:26:08 pm you wrote: I'm sorry to bother you this way, but I was wondering if you have any intentions to integrate the plugin architecture for cacti into the debian package. Since you made quite significant changes, cacti can't be patched with the plugin architecture. could you be more specific on what you mean by quite significant changes? not counting the official patches from cacti.net, the version in unstable only differs by 9 lines or so. However, it seems to me that adding this to the debian package would give a lot more flexibility. Somebody already sent this in as a wishlist, but that was a while ago and I just want to know if we can expect this in a future release. Otherwise, I will have to switch to the real source. i'm not against adding it, though i don't have a lot of time to evaluate it either. since this is a third party patch (though there's lots of reference to it in official cacti documentation) i'd like to hear from one of the main cacti devs about what they think of it as well. of course if someone helped out to lessen my workload on either of these fronts (providing a patch and/or contacting the upstream author) it would certainly help things along. sean signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
