On Apr 25, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> Yes, understood, but my point here is that there could be multiple hwloc >> packages -- one that installs the core and some base set of lstopo plugins >> (probably not cairo and X). And then secondary packages install lstopo's >> cairo and X plugins. >> >> Hence, a sysadmin can choose whether to have cairo/X support (because >> presumably they will both pull in bunches of dependencies). > > I understand that too. > >> But the user always runs "lstopo" and gets the choice of whatever outputs >> the sysadmin has chosen to install. > > Which is quite different from what you said above :)
Hmm. Perhaps we're having a failure to communicate here. :-( > And it's what is already achieved by the current status. Yes and no. Yes: the lstopo user gets whatever the sysadmin chose to install. No: the system is not flexible for binary distributions Meaning: I see 2 ways to have binary packages that have X/cairo support and don't have X/cairo support: 1. Have multiple, complimentary hwloc packages (i.e., they can both be installed at the same time) that have different lstopo executable names 2. Have multiple, exclusionary hwloc packages that both use the same "lstopo" executable name My goal in the plugin suggestion is to have one lstopo executable but allow multiple binary packages that can add or remove lstopo output support by installing/removing plugins. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
