perfsonar development work

[Loukik Kudarimoti <>]

Hi Jeff,

<snip>
> > I am more convinced than before that perl scripts calling on ant is 
> > the best way forward.
>
> Summary:
>
> It probably is the best way for a post-install configuration script to 
> be written. It is absolutely NOT the best way to track dependencies 
> and updates of packages.
So, we agree that perl scripts calling on ant targets is the best way 
for post-install configuration. I haven't heard anybody else 
disagreeing. So, if you can acknowledge this point, I will add a feature 
request in bugzilla for this and we drop in from our future discussions.
> These are two different topics. It confuses the issue to combine them. 
> In my opinion both of these statements are true:
>
> 1) For long-term viability of pS, it will be necessary for pS services 
> to be installable via the normal package management solutions 
> available on each OS. This will allow upgrades and dependency checking 
> to happen in ways consistent with the expectations of system 
> administrators at NOC's.
This is fine for me. It is just one more way of downloading and 
installing perfSONAR.

A tar ball will still have to be made available on our webpage. So, I 
would like to focus on the installation of that particular tar ball (and 
all the dependent software) - I will start a new email thread for that 
if needed.
> 2) For pS usability, it is necessary to provide configuration 
> applications to help the end-user configure (and test) the installed 
> services.
Absolutely. I believe for configuration and testing, as I mentioned 
above, we both agree that perl calling on ant targets is the best way 
forward.

Loukik.
> jeff