Jeff Squyres, le Wed 25 Apr 2012 16:55:23 +0200, a écrit : > On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > >> FWIW: Having lstopo plugins for output would obviate the need for having > >> two executable names. > > > > Well, it seems overkill to me. It makes sense to me to have both > > xlstopo and lstopo. > > Ick. FWIW, I dislike having two executables. I like having one executable > that can adapt itself to whatever is loaded / available on the system. :-)
It already adapts itself, here. The issue is that the user has to install an X version to get potential for X support. Which brings X. If you do this with plugins, and you want automatic adaptation to whether X is there, you'll have to install the plugin (it can't install itself magically). And then that brings X too... > But if I'm in the minority, no problem... > > If I'm not, I can work on a patch to see if it would be horribly disruptive... It would most probably not be, we already use a backend style, so it's a matter of putting the code in separate plugins. Samuel
