Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
From: Ralph Castain (rhc.openmpi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-05 16:22:10

I thought I already had a check pmi m4 somewhere? Should have been in that pmi component I committed a few months ago. I can check next week.

I agree with Brian - can't really be checked, and there are non-slurm pmi's out there.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:40 AM, "Barrett, Brian W" <bwbarre_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]