Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Makes sense (except lam-dev, it seems that should be in -dev rather than -master...). So there is a valid use for -dev, -master and -node.Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu> cum veritate scripsit:So what does go on a master/head node, but not on the others? Is there a need for such a -master task?I think: mpich, lam-dev. I don't remember if we included dhcp/bootp/rarp/tftp, but if that's the case they would be on the master.
I am skeptical we can make it into the tasks now, and I am also doubtful it should be a task.On whether we can make it into tasksel, I can certainly try. Why don't you think it should be a task?
That's another approach, but personally, I like the elegance of the tasksel system, particularly the ability to add one's package to a task just by putting Task: in control, instead of having to bug the maintainer of the meta-package.Maybe a meta-package, just not task-parallel-* but call it parallel-* ?
I'm curious about your reluctance to create tasksel tasks... Zeen, -- -Adam P. GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! <http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>