Then let's just be patient until OPAL_SOS make it in the trunk, and save us the burden of a large effort made twice.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 22:35 , Ralph Castain wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>> I agree with Jeff's comments about the BTL_ERROR. How about a middle ground here? We let the BTLs use BTL_ERROR, eventually with some modifications, and we redirect the BTL_ERROR to a more advanced macro including support for orte_show_help? This will require going over all the BTLs, but on the bright side it will give us a 100% consistency on retorting errors.
>>> Sounds reasonable to me - I'm happy to help do it, assuming Jeff also concurs. I assume we would then replace all the show_help calls as well? Otherwise, I'm not sure what we gain as the direct orte_show_help dependency will remain. Or are those calls too specialized to be replaced with BTL_ERROR?
>> Should this kind of thing wait for OPAL_SOS?
>> (I mention this because the OPAL_SOS RFC will be sent to devel Real Soon Now...)
> Sure - OPAL_SOS will supersede all this anyway.
>> Jeff Squyres
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list