Jeff Squyres, le Wed 25 Apr 2012 17:11:28 +0200, a écrit :
> Yes: the lstopo user gets whatever the sysadmin chose to install.
> No: the system is not flexible for binary distributions
> Meaning: I see 2 ways to have binary packages that have X/cairo support and don't have X/cairo support:
> 1. Have multiple, complimentary hwloc packages (i.e., they can both be installed at the same time) that have different lstopo executable names
> 2. Have multiple, exclusionary hwloc packages that both use the same "lstopo" executable name
> My goal in the plugin suggestion is to have one lstopo executable but allow multiple binary packages that can add or remove lstopo output support by installing/removing plugins.
I fully understand that.
But it still seems overkill to me to use approach 1 while approach 2
just works. Yes, that conflicts with the original issue of the thread.
It happens that on Debian we can actually make hwloc and hwloc-nox
co-installable, by just putting a diversion: the hwloc /usr/bin/lstopo
would take over the hwloc-nox /usr/bin/lstopo. Same command name, and
Of course, my finding the whole thing overkill doesn't mean that I'm
against it being done. I'm just giving my point of view.