Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-21 16:14:40


Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway? If so, why do we ship flex.exe?

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:

> I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows tarball or a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, and could even be done automatically at make dist time.
>
> Brian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: users-bounces_at_[hidden] <users-bounces_at_[hidden]>
> To: users_at_[hidden] <users_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010
> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico:
> > openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe
> >
> > I understand this file might be required for building on windows,
> > since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue.
> >
> > However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are
> > not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the
> > file (not a big deal, i know, i know).
> >
> > But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree?
>
> I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in
> Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with every
> release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a
> separate tarball that would be great!
>
> Best regards
> Manuel
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]