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
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