Jeff Squyres, le Wed 25 Apr 2012 17:11:28 +0200, a écrit : > 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.
I fully understand that. But it still seems overkill to me to use approach 1 while approach 2 just works. Yes, that conflicts with the original issue of the thread. It happens that on Debian we can actually make hwloc and hwloc-nox co-installable, by just putting a diversion: the hwloc /usr/bin/lstopo would take over the hwloc-nox /usr/bin/lstopo. Same command name, and installation flexibility. Of course, my finding the whole thing overkill doesn't mean that I'm against it being done. I'm just giving my point of view. Samuel
