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. Ralph Sent from my iPad On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:40 AM, "Barrett, Brian W" <bwba...@sandia.gov> wrote: > On 10/5/11 12:37 PM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquy...@cisco.com> 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 > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
