On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:49 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Bernd Kallies wrote: > > >> 1.1 is pretty close to done. If you wanted to shift your work to be based > >> on 1.1, I think you'd be pretty safe. > > > > I'll try. Currently my wrapper implements only basic things, so there > > should be no problem (because it is a wrapper, only). Problems would > > arise when one wants to extend the number of implemented methods. > > Cool. > > > To be > > honest, I expected some remarks about the completeness of the wrapper. > > My personal bias is always reading from the objects; I rarely use many of the > accessors (simply because hardware may not be uniform). That's why I thought > your first set of accessors was sufficient. > > My $0.02: those are ok. Go with that for a first version. Then get some > real-world users and see what they ask for. > > >> Would you -- or your employer, if they own the code that you generate -- > >> be able to sign this document? > > > > The answer is yes. > > Great! > > FWIW, Samuel made a good point to me off-list earlier today: keeping language > bindings as a separate package is worthwhile because then they can use their > own language-native build/install/packaging tools rather than have to deal > with the GNU autotools. That's a relatively good argument to put stuff on > CPAN (and/or push them via RPMs to the distros). > > At a bare minimum, I believe that if you host perl bindings on CPAN (and Red > Hat Guy hosts python bindings elsewhere), we can definitely link to that site > from our web site, README, ...etc.
So, in summary you say that I'd submit the perl-hwloc binding to CPAN. I also believed that this should be better than distributing this within hwloc, but I wanted to hear what you say first. Sincerely BK -- Dr. Bernd Kallies Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin Takustr. 7 14195 Berlin Tel: +49-30-84185-270 Fax: +49-30-84185-311 e-mail: kall...@zib.de
