On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:11:27 +0100 Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:08:01AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > > > > I think we should rather use "slurm-wlm" if we are trying to > > > > dissambiguate with the "Slurm the Realtime network interface monitor". > > > The website https://computing.llnl.gov/linux/slurm/ suggests > > > otherwise. Also archlinux took this name > > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/slurm-llnl/ > > > > And Debian, but we are free to use our own conventions. Do you think it > > is likely that we will package the other slurm? Otherwise, I would simply > > go with "slurm" now according to our package guidelines; and then we can > > still name the other slurm as slurm-nlm or similar. > > There is already a slurm package. But it does something different. I > propose we do it my way, so outsiders understand it. Let them flock > over from Debian ;) In debian, the "slurm-llnl" is a dummy package to help users transition to the new "slurm-wlm" package. `~Eric
