On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 07:03:42AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 29 August 2007 at 11:34, Manuel Prinz wrote: > | Am Montag, den 27.08.2007, 08:14 -0500 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > | > I'd vote for actually 'Debian patching' the config file to set ^openib, > and > | > adding a line there "comment out if you have infinit band and want to use > it". > | > | I checked in a patch that modifies the config and documents the issue in > | README.Debian. I wasn't able to test it yet, so I'm not tagging this bug > | as pending. > | > | Nevertheless, while patching I started not feeling very comfortable with > | this, for the following reason: If one has InfiniBand, it will not be > | working anymore, maybe without warning. To enable it again, one has to > | do so on all nodes. If one doesn't have InfiniBand, all one gets is a > | quite annoying warning but that doesn't influence the behavior at all. > | > | So the question I asked myself is: Isn't it more reasonable to comment > | out the configuration setting and add a line "uncomment if you want to > | shut up libibverbs". This would not influence the runtime behavior at > | all. Opinions?
I think the default should be a working Infiniband install, and somebody who wants to silence a few messages can edit one or two lines in the config file (no I don't use Infiniband myself, but I think it makes sense to enable as much functionality per default as possible in this case; well, except that there were some security implications or something, but I don't think that's the case). > It's tricky. We could also use a debconf question once, and remember the > value to rewrite the conf file, but maybe that makes life to complicated. Yeah, overkill IMHO. My 2 cents, Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
