It seems like this should be a field in ompi_info output, too...
Maybe a component can effect a "license" m4 variable, or somesuch...?
On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:14 PM, hje...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
> Author: hjelmn
> Date: 2011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT (Wed, 05 Oct 2011)
> New Revision: 25234
> URL: https://sv
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.
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.
Bri
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.
> But more importantly, we should remove that parti
On 10/5/11 12:37 PM, "Jeff Squyres" 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.
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, Br
On 10/5/11 2:22 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
>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.
You did :). LANL's moving some code around so that we can extend the ALPS
ess to use PMI instead of cnos to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
On 10/5/11 2:22 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
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.
You did :). LANL's moving some code around so that we can e
Please go ahead! I'm happy to help get it all working when I return from
vacation, assuming it isn't already done. :-)
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/11 2:22 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
>>
>>>
