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
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
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
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
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
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
* i
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
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
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 pla
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 --
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 "mak
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 ls
12 matches
Mail list logo
