Sorry; my stupid mailer didn't display it as an attachment when I
forwarded. Try this.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
On Fri, Oct/31/2008 01:01:02PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Re-sending to the MTT list, because I think our listserver will
> automatically block Brian (I'll ad
The 2008.10.31 version that Jeff forwarded works fine on SLES9 PPC64.
2008/10/31 Jeff Squyres :
> Sorry; my stupid mailer didn't display it as an attachment when I forwarded.
> Try this.
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct/31/2008 01:01:02PM, Jeff Squyres wrot
I bet we can fix those occurances safely.
-Brian
--
Brian Elliott Finley
CIS / Argonne National Laboratory
Office: 630.252.4742
Mobile: 630.631.6621
-Original Message-
From: Ethan Mallove
List-Post: mtt-users@lists.open-mpi.org
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:14:59
To: General user list
All,
I've committed a new version that includes the version referenced below,
and changed the $() to ``.
Cheers, -Brian
Tim Mattox wrote:
> The 2008.10.31 version that Jeff forwarded works fine on SLES9 PPC64.
>
> 2008/10/31 Jeff Squyres :
>> Sorry; my stupid mailer didn't display it as an att
Thanks Brian. Ethan -- if it works for you, can you pull down a new
version and commit to MTT's SVN?
On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
All,
I've committed a new version that includes the version referenced
below,
and changed the $() to ``.
Cheers, -Brian
Tim Mat
On Thu, Nov/06/2008 04:24:15PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Thanks Brian. Ethan -- if it works for you, can you pull down a new
> version and commit to MTT's SVN?
Done.
I get "linux-RedHatEnterpriseServer_5-ia32", instead of
"linux-rhel5-ia32" now. I guess I sort of prefer the short
version. Oh well
Ditto:
[8:23] svbu-mpi:~/svn/mtt % ./client/whatami/whatami
linux-RedHatEnterpriseAS_4-x86_64
On Nov 7, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
On Thu, Nov/06/2008 04:24:15PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Thanks Brian. Ethan -- if it works for you, can you pull down a new
version and commit to MTT's
Well, we don't want to be changing the results that folks are already
relying on, but it looks like we are.
The benefit in putting the lsb test at the top is that most new and
future distros can be identified by that.
But, it looks like the safest thing to do is to put it at the bottom.
Unfortuna
Ethan -- did we ever reply to Brian about this?
Do you have any thoughts on the issue?
On Nov 7, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
Well, we don't want to be changing the results that folks are already
relying on, but it looks like we are.
The benefit in putting the lsb test at th
On Mon, Jan/05/2009 07:36:06PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Ethan -- did we ever reply to Brian about this?
>
Oops. I did not.
> Do you have any thoughts on the issue?
My thought is that I definitely prefer the short string (rhel) to the
new long one (RedHatEnterprise), and I'm less concerned about
wh
10 matches
Mail list logo
