Hi Kenneth, On 09 Nov, 2012, at 13:26, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > The framework was unaffected, the bugs were limited to particular software > packages.
Nice. What is your recommended "authoritative" way to track such changes? I am having my view at this one now which is not always most readable summary: https://github.com/hpcugent/easybuild-easyconfigs/commits/master and I understand this addresses the zlib version fighting I noticed, too! Also, a few packages have an issue to download their sources correctly, I think you have not noticed yet since you haven't cleaned the sources cache? (notably: mvapich v1.7, MTL4 and perhaps a couple more; and this affects deps) Furthermore, some packages -including the bioinformatics ones we have contributed- may have a little bit difficulty to build straight out of the box. I suggest to play clean and lean for the v1.0 release and put them aside for a next release. (ie. if you see any suspicion of trouble, better put it in a queue for later). We do not need to be so strict for next releases, just this first one. IMHO, this is really important for newcomers of easybuild -we expect a flux next week-, there is no reason to distract them with issues of individual packages and, we all know that complex system environments can make things tricky enough. Finally, let's take advantage of our proposed meeting @ Uni.Lu by the end of the month to discuss such issues that newcomers find (I especially care for osdependencies aspects) with v1.0 and how to make their bootstrapping simple (eg. build a community FAQ etc). ps. To make you cheer: 100s of packages can build fine in the automated way with 1.0-rc1 by sourcing Makefiles of NetBSD's pkgsrc; As discussed, these are just templates but they provide a quick solution for a few trivial packages (a2ps was my trigger): https://github.com/fgeorgatos/easybuild.experimental To be continued. enjoy, Fotis
