imagine what people will think when it fails; or when it works and takes a few
hours to complete. i would at the very least call the options ebsearch and
ebinstall to indicate the difference.
In fact, that's exactly how Cedric does it (and he calls that ebfind).
But, that wouldn't be crazy enough!
"""
extreme thought: yes, this is an extreme thought: consider module
search/install extensions!
ANSWER: or try that with "module load" instead ;-)
i'm not following here.
an extreme thought would be to improve (or replace ;)
environment-modules with easybuild support built in.
"""
Ref. https://github.com/fgeorgatos/easybuild.experimental/wiki/Wishlist
and our discussions over past week's hackathon.
One thing, that I have not found a satisfactory answer yet about, is:
why is the module an internal shell function, if it is not to be overriden?
i'm curious how you are going to modify an existing shell without doing
it this way. i don't think bash has an C API to set environment modules
(but i could be mistaken)
btw.
the current implementation of environment-modules leaves some things
to be desired; a notable one is elegant management of dependent modules,
especially as regards compilers/mpi stacks etc.
We are drifting away here, but this is an interesting topic.
If you want to find out more, these guys made a clean-room implementation
of modules, in Lua; make sure you visit the "Module Hierarchy" part:
http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/tacc-projects/mclay/lmod
Cedric, there is even something for you there, once we get the icc compiler!
ok, i'll look into it.
There is a lesson there for most current environment-modules users.
He, and modules are supposed to be the *easy* way to manage this mess :-)
;)
stijn
enjoy,
Fotis
