Jeff Squyres, le Wed 25 Apr 2012 16:55:23 +0200, a écrit :
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> FWIW: Having lstopo plugins for output would obviate the need for having two executable names.
> > Well, it seems overkill to me. It makes sense to me to have both
> > xlstopo and lstopo.
> Ick. FWIW, I dislike having two executables. I like having one executable that can adapt itself to whatever is loaded / available on the system. :-)
It already adapts itself, here. The issue is that the user has to
install an X version to get potential for X support. Which brings X.
If you do this with plugins, and you want automatic adaptation to
whether X is there, you'll have to install the plugin (it can't install
itself magically). And then that brings X too...
> But if I'm in the minority, no problem...
> If I'm not, I can work on a patch to see if it would be horribly disruptive...
It would most probably not be, we already use a backend style, so it's a
matter of putting the code in separate plugins.