On May 29, 2012, at 1:48 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> I implemented this in the branch lstopo-no-graphics. Additional changes
> to note:
> 1) lstopo-no-graphics is now text-only on Windows too
> 2) when cairo is disabled (and not running on windows), lstopo is a
> symlink on lstopo-no-graphics
> 3) i
Le 25/05/2012 12:34, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> Hmm. I typed "lstopo-no-graphics" above, just to be descriptive, but
> is that a horrible name? If the main goal is for binary packagers who
> assumedly have /etc/alternative-type solutions such that users will
> rarely/never type that full name, how ab
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 May 2012 12:34:38 +0200, a écrit :
> >From my checkout, it looks like lstopo-no-graphics supports:
>
> console, txt, fig, xml, synthetic
>
> How did fig get in there, btw? Doesn't that add dependencies? (or did that
> get coded up manually / with no library support?
On May 25, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Using apt-file, here's what I found on my Debian (after filtering some
> stuff that looked irrelevant):
> -nox 2
> .nox 1
> -nowin 1
> _nogui 2
> _text 3
> _textclient 1
> -gui-text 1 => confirms that -gui isn't what we want :)
> -text 7
> -txt 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25/05/12 15:23, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Packages yes, but do you have *program* names with such suffixes?
Sigh, I missed that distinction, apologies!
- --
Christopher Samuel - Senior Systems Administrator
VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Compu
Le 25/05/2012 07:23, Brice Goglin a écrit :
> Le 25/05/2012 02:38, Christopher Samuel a écrit :
>> On 25/05/12 06:14, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>>> Are there other traditional suffixes that are used for this kind of
>>> thing? Or is lstopo kinda unique in this area?
>> A quick look in Ubuntu shows pa
Le 25/05/2012 02:38, Christopher Samuel a écrit :
> On 25/05/12 06:14, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> > Are there other traditional suffixes that are used for this kind of
> > thing? Or is lstopo kinda unique in this area?
>
> A quick look in Ubuntu shows packages using things the following
> (though I c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25/05/12 06:14, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Are there other traditional suffixes that are used for this kind of
> thing? Or is lstopo kinda unique in this area?
A quick look in Ubuntu shows packages using things the following
(though I could have misse
Le 24/05/2012 22:14, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> On May 24, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>> So what you dislike isn't the split, it's the fact that lstopo doesn't
>> behave as it did earlier. You want lstopo-nogui and lstopo instead of
>> lstopo and lstopo-gui. And alternative systems can
On May 24, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> So what you dislike isn't the split, it's the fact that lstopo doesn't
> behave as it did earlier. You want lstopo-nogui and lstopo instead of
> lstopo and lstopo-gui. And alternative systems can make lstopo point to
> lstopo-nogui when the real
Le 24/05/2012 17:16, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> Just for the record, I really, really dislike the fact that we've now split
> lstopo into lstopo and lstopo-gui.
>
> Especially since I keep flipping back and forth between hwloc 1.4 and the
> hwloc trunk, I continually get it wrong on the command lin
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 24 May 2012 17:16:27 +0200, a écrit :
> I really think we should revisit the issue and find a way to accommodate
> those who don't want lots of dependencies in downstream binary packaging
> without splitting into 2 different binaries.
As I said, I don't like using modules ju
Just for the record, I really, really dislike the fact that we've now split
lstopo into lstopo and lstopo-gui.
Especially since I keep flipping back and forth between hwloc 1.4 and the hwloc
trunk, I continually get it wrong on the command line (e.g., use "lstopo
foo.pdf" when I needed to use l
13 matches
Mail list logo
