Dennis, Did you have an opinion about this? I am going to release the final hwloc v1.10 soon. So if there's something to fix, I'd rather know it quickly. thanks Brice
Le 25/09/2014 07:47, Brice Goglin a écrit : > Le 25/09/2014 02:22, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn a écrit : >> So I just recompiled again but using version 1.4.3 and the graphical >> output options reappeared. I also tried version 1.5.2 and this version >> will not show the graphical output options anymore so it seems something >> has changed between 1.4 and 1.5 that changes the output options in some way. >> > In 1.5, Fedora/RH people asked for a separation of lstopo-no-graphics > and lstopo with graphical options. lstopo-no-graphics is always built > without graphical support. lstopo is built with graphical support when > possible, or it's just a symlink to lstopo-no-graphics. > > And hwloc-ls is just a symlink to lstopo-no-graphics in all cases. So > just use lstopo and you'll be happy. > > The reason for not being a symlink to lstopo is likely that lstopo > doesn't always exist. It depends how hwloc is packaged. On Debian, you > have either a package with lstopo-no-graphics and a lstopo symlink, or > another package with lstopo-no-graphics and lstopo binaries. On > Fedora/... you always have a package that contains lstopo-no-graphics > with no lstopo at all, and you can add another package with the > graphical lstopo on top of it. > > Maybe we should just drop hwloc-ls to avoid the confusion. But several > people are used to it already. > Also we added a hwloc-ls desktop file recently, I guess it points to a > non-graphical, which isn't good. > I can make hwloc-ls a real program that checks whether lstopo exists > before it runs lstopo or lstopo-no-graphics ? > > Brice > >
