I agree with most of Neil's comments.
While I am all for uniformity and naming conventions, I don't think we
need to go totally hog-wild with naming conventions here. "oda" and "opd"
now have history associated with them, so they should keep their current
names. install_cluster should be renamed to oscar -- but we might as well
wait for the metamenu rewrite before we do that.
That's really the only three commands to worry about -- so far.
I'd say that if we create any OSCAR-specific sysadmin commands in the
future, they should be prefixed with "oscar_". So to clarify, we're *not*
talking about all the regular packages (e.g., not asking for
"oscar_mpicc"). I think this really only has to do with new,
OSCAR-specific sysadmin executables that we'll distribute in the glue or
core.
I also don't think that there will be too many of these, but there might
be some -- wrappers around the metamenu command, for example (indeed, the
"oscar" executable will likely effectively be a short wrapper around the
metamenu command).
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Neil Gorsuch wrote:
> Just as with pfilter, oda is designed to be a stand-alone package outside
> of oscar. If we want the oscar/oda package scripts to install a link named
> oscar_database that points to the binary program oda, that is fine. But
> frankly I don't see the need to have a long name. I'm not much for
> inconveniencing myself for the sake of standardizing things.
[snipped]
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Oscar-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
