On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:08:01AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > > > I think we should rather use "slurm-wlm" if we are trying to > > > dissambiguate with the "Slurm the Realtime network interface monitor". > > The website https://computing.llnl.gov/linux/slurm/ suggests > > otherwise. Also archlinux took this name > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/slurm-llnl/ > > And Debian, but we are free to use our own conventions. Do you think it > is likely that we will package the other slurm? Otherwise, I would simply > go with "slurm" now according to our package guidelines; and then we can > still name the other slurm as slurm-nlm or similar.
There is already a slurm package. But it does something different. I propose we do it my way, so outsiders understand it. Let them flock over from Debian ;) Pj.
