On 26/04/2012 08:11, Christopher Samuel wrote:
On 26/04/12 02:35, Brice Goglin wrote:
I think I would vote for lstopo (no X/cairo) and lstopo so
that completion helps.
Not sure if that's an option with Debian given the policy; the hwloc
package would have to have lstopo with X enabled and
On 26/04/12 02:35, Brice Goglin wrote:
> I think I would vote for lstopo (no X/cairo) and lstopo so
> that completion helps.
Not sure if that's an option with Debian given the policy; the hwloc
package would have to have lstopo with X enabled and then a nox
package would install that variant of
On 25/04/12 23:44, Jeffrey Squyres wrote:
> FWIW: Having lstopo plugins for output would obviate the need for
> having two executable names.
IIRC that's generally handled via the alternatives system (or
diversions if you don't like alternatives) in Debian/Ubuntu.
--
Christopher Samuel -
