If we're going to install two lstopo binaries with different names,
we need good names now (instead of plugin trolls).
I think I would vote for lstopo (no X/cairo) and
lstopo<suffix> so that completion helps.
On 25/04/2012 11:38, Brice Goglin wrote:
We recently got some complains from redhat/centos users that
wanted to install hwloc on their cluster but couldn't because it
brought so many X libraries that they don't care about.
Debian solves this by having two hwloc packages: the main hwloc
one, and hwloc-nox where cairo is disabled. You just install one
of them, packages are marked as conflicting with each others.
I asked Jirka, our fellow RPM hwloc packager. He feels that RPM
distros don't work that way. They usually have a core 'foo'
package without X, and something such as 'foo-gui' with the
X-enabled binary. So you'd have lstopo and lstopo-gui installed at
the same time.
I don't have any preference but RPM is much more widely used than
deb in HPC, so we must consider the issue, either in hwloc or in
RPM packaging. And we need a solution that is consistent across
distros (we don't want users to get lost because Debian/Ubuntu
lstopo is graphical while RPM lstopo is not and lstopo-gui is).
It's not hard to build two lstopo binaries in the same hwloc
(quick patch attached). But we'd need to decide their names
(lstopo/lstopo-nox, lstopo/lstopo-nogui, lstopo-gui/lstopo), and
find a good way to make the existing packages deal with them.
How do people feel about this? Is it ok to choose between hwloc
and hwloc-nox packages on Debian/Ubuntu? Does somebody want to
*always* have a lstopo-nox installed? Should the default lstopo be
graphical/cario or not?
hwloc-devel mailing list