I don't have a strong opinion, but the historical "standard practice" for Linux/Unix has always been to default to cmd line, non-graphical interfaces. Graphical output was optional. Of course, that stemmed from the days before everyone had a graphical display, but it is still generally followed.
On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:38 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Hello, > > We recently got some complains from redhat/centos users that wanted to > install hwloc on their cluster but couldn't because it brought so many X > libraries that they don't care about. > > Debian solves this by having two hwloc packages: the main hwloc one, and > hwloc-nox where cairo is disabled. You just install one of them, packages are > marked as conflicting with each others. > > I asked Jirka, our fellow RPM hwloc packager. He feels that RPM distros don't > work that way. They usually have a core 'foo' package without X, and > something such as 'foo-gui' with the X-enabled binary. So you'd have lstopo > and lstopo-gui installed at the same time. > > I don't have any preference but RPM is much more widely used than deb in HPC, > so we must consider the issue, either in hwloc or in RPM packaging. And we > need a solution that is consistent across distros (we don't want users to get > lost because Debian/Ubuntu lstopo is graphical while RPM lstopo is not and > lstopo-gui is). > > It's not hard to build two lstopo binaries in the same hwloc (quick patch > attached). But we'd need to decide their names (lstopo/lstopo-nox, > lstopo/lstopo-nogui, lstopo-gui/lstopo), and find a good way to make the > existing packages deal with them. > > How do people feel about this? Is it ok to choose between hwloc and hwloc-nox > packages on Debian/Ubuntu? Does somebody want to *always* have a lstopo-nox > installed? Should the default lstopo be graphical/cario or not? > > Brice > > <lstopo-nox.patch>_______________________________________________ > hwloc-devel mailing list > hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
