I totally forgot one of my key points. Need more caffiene. :-)
A lot of this is moot until we have OSCAR installed into /opt/oscar-X.Y.
So I think we should concentrate on RPM-izing the OSCAR glue and
re-working the "make dist" mechanism to build the three different
tarballs:
1. glue RPM (including opd) + top-level script to install it and invoke
"oscar"
2. all of #1 + core code and/or packages
3. all of #2 + some set of included packages
(Actually, I think we need "regular", "extra crispy" and "secret sauce"
versions of #3, but that's just semantics)
I'm not worried about RPM-izing the glue and then having to re-work it
when we do the metamenu stuff, because that's essentially just changing
the MANIFEST list (or equivalent file contents listing) -- I don't think
it will be a big deal. I'd rather get it RPM-ized now, and change the
contents when we switch to metamenu.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 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.
[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
