On 10/5/11 12:37 PM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>> I don't think we need to go that far; in fact, we really shouldn't use
>>m4
>> macros to enforce license policies like that.
>
>I'm not talking about enforcement -- I'm talking about notification.
That's what I meant by policies. Configure.m4 is the wrong place to set
things like licensing information; if you want ompi_info to know something
about a license, make it part of the component struct.
>> But more importantly, we should remove that particular warning from this
>> test, since the test is used in places other than SLURM, which don't
>>have
>> negative licensing impact.
>
>Fair enough; is there a way to tell the difference between BSD-friendly
>PMI and not-BSD-friendly PMI?
Not directly, no. It's likely that the ess will need to be PMI +
something for many cases, so perhaps those configure macros can check.
Perhaps not. Kind of sucks, but what can you do?
Brian
--
Brian W. Barrett
Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
Sandia National Laboratories
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}