On Feb 25, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) <dgood...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> This is a good question: what should we do here? >> >> 1. Abort the configure (e.g., insist that the user install libltdl or >> --disable-dlopen) > > I'd do this. A clear message should make this no big deal for users, and in > some cases it improves our odds of getting a (much welcome) report about some > buggy dl component (or build system) logic.
I did that and just shipped a tarball to get Hargroved. However, I'm a bit uneasy about it -- this is different than most other OMPI configure CLI options. Most others are "if unspecified, try it and use it if we can, and skip it if we can't". This would be a departure from that. :-\ >> 2. Fall back to a --disable-dlopen build >> >> --> I looked into #2; at first blush, it looks kinda hard to do. :-\ I.e., >> by the time we figure out that neither dl component will build, all the >> "whether dl functionality will be available or not" decisions have been made >> (and are difficult to un-make). It would require some re-structuring -- >> e.g., deferring the "whether dl functionality will be available or not" >> decisions. > > Yeah, sounds like a real pain, plus it could mask legitimate issues while we > iron the kinks out of the new dl framework. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/17034.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
