Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Ok -- so if we can build a tarball and "make check" it successfully on > all platforms, we're a go? Yes. But, tests/linux/ is already 500kB large after compression (it brings many tarballs of /proc and /sys and the corresponding expected lstopo outputs). So I wondered if one day we'll have to drop it from the tarball. Is there an easy way to exclude things at make dist depending on some options or env variables? Eh. Bandwidth is cheap. I don't mind large tarballs. There's not an easy/portable way (that I'm aware of) to exclude based on env vars; but we certainly can add a configure --without-extra- tests flag (or something like that). -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > >> > Does "make check" work properly? I.e., will it return pass/fail on >> > all the different platforms? >> >> It's supposed to be fully automake-compliant so I think so. >> > > > Ok -- so if we can build a tarball and "make check" it successfully on > all platforms, we're a go? Yes. But, tests/linux/ is already 500kB large after compression (it brings many tarballs of /proc and /sys and the corresponding expected lstopo outputs). So I wondered if one day we'll have to drop it from the tarball. Is there an easy way to exclude things at make dist depending on some options or env variables? Brice
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 14 Sep 2009 10:30:08 -0400, a écrit : > On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > >> Does "make check" work properly? I.e., will it return pass/fail on > >> all the different platforms? > > > >It's supposed to be fully automake-compliant so I think so. > > Ok -- so if we can build a tarball and "make check" it successfully on > all platforms, we're a go? Yes, see "To check" paragraph of HACKING. Samuel
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Does "make check" work properly? I.e., will it return pass/fail on > all the different platforms? It's supposed to be fully automake-compliant so I think so. Ok -- so if we can build a tarball and "make check" it successfully on all platforms, we're a go? (I'm updating HACKING about this) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Jeff Squyres wrote: > Does "make check" work properly? I.e., will it return pass/fail on > all the different platforms? It's supposed to be fully automake-compliant so I think so. Brice
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
On Sep 14, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Do we want to setup some automated regression testing (maybe using > MTT?) with nightly tarballs and across multiple platforms? What kind of platforms do you have ? I only have Linux / x86_64. :-\ Right now, make check is the main way to check things: * it runs many unit tests to check the API behavior * it reads/outputs many Linux topologies (so that we can emulate a 16 sockets 4 core box on our laptop) * it builds the lib core on non-Linux headers Don't know if we need more so far. Does "make check" work properly? I.e., will it return pass/fail on all the different platforms? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Jeff Squyres wrote: > Do we want to setup some automated regression testing (maybe using > MTT?) with nightly tarballs and across multiple platforms? What kind of platforms do you have ? Right now, make check is the main way to check things: * it runs many unit tests to check the API behavior * it reads/outputs many Linux topologies (so that we can emulate a 16 sockets 4 core box on our laptop) * it builds the lib core on non-Linux headers Don't know if we need more so far. Brice
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Brice Goglin, le Mon 14 Sep 2009 15:17:40 +0200, a écrit : > And Samuel will likely find some breakage on non-Linux OS :) Ah, indeed, I need to re-test it all on all ports. Samuel
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Do we want to setup some automated regression testing (maybe using MTT?) with nightly tarballs and across multiple platforms? On Sep 14, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: Jeff Squyres wrote: > Brice / Samuel -- > > What did you have planned left for hwloc v0.9.1? I think I got in all > the build system changes that I wanted for the time being (more coming > later, but not until after the first release). Should we SVN branch > for 0.9.1? > Nothing important on my TODOlist. I need to take an hour looking at function names and tool filenames in case something is obviously wrongly named. And Samuel will likely find some breakage on non-Linux OS :) Brice ___ hwloc-devel mailing list hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
Re: [hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Jeff Squyres wrote: > Brice / Samuel -- > > What did you have planned left for hwloc v0.9.1? I think I got in all > the build system changes that I wanted for the time being (more coming > later, but not until after the first release). Should we SVN branch > for 0.9.1? > Nothing important on my TODOlist. I need to take an hour looking at function names and tool filenames in case something is obviously wrongly named. And Samuel will likely find some breakage on non-Linux OS :) Brice
[hwloc-devel] What's left for v0.9.1?
Brice / Samuel -- What did you have planned left for hwloc v0.9.1? I think I got in all the build system changes that I wanted for the time being (more coming later, but not until after the first release). Should we SVN branch for 0.9.1? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
[hwloc-devel] libtopology tarballs posted
FYI: Because the libtopology web site will disappear someday, and because we haven't released a version of hwloc yet, I posted the libtopology v0.9 tarballs here: http://www.open-mpi.org/software/hwloc/v0.9/ -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
