i'm not saying that the versioning couldn't reflect something better, like
the ictce toolchain could be called intel-<icc major>.arbitrary .garbage or
something like that, but i'm usnsure a module versioing will fix the real
issue.
What's the "real issue"?
i think the real issue is that a users does
module av
and then instantly goes in coma (partially by lack of hierarchical
module names).
after being awaken and told of toolchains, (s)he then tries
module av ictce
followed by mild heart attack, then, against doctors advice, does
module show ictce/x.y.z
followed by lots of swearing.
so i'd say it's a human interaction issue, rather then a strict
technical problem about "good" versioning (which doesn't have any proper
solution anyway).
ideally, the most common interactions are human readable/understandable,
whatever the underlying techincal solution does.
so a
module load intel/good
is the way to go
My issue with that current versioning scheme
is that it is completely opaque, so I have to read the `.eb` file for
the toolchain to find out what exactly is in `goolf-1.4.10` ...
i'd like to make a disctinction between
goolf-x.y.z and aliases like goolf/good (or default goolf)
if you do module load golf/x.y.z you are in expert mode, and just live
with that. but we should defintely (try to) offer a non-expert,
readbale/understandable, default-is-good-enough mode.
I do agree that printing out the version numbers of tools
in `module show $toolchain` will go a long way, though.
it would be better that site admins symlink a set of toolchain+version to
something human readable for the users
Then each site will have its own naming/versioning scheme, and we are
just duplicating each others' work. We'll end up there anyway if we
cannot agree on a "good enough" (there's no "perfect" here) compromise,
but let's try...
defintely +1, but rather not enforced by via easyconfig modules.
this should be some community effort to vote say 2 or 4 times a year
what the good/default/... should be.
EB could/should provide tools to deploy these choices and make them
easily site-customisable. (they can ofcourse share via github and the
release process etc etc)
How could you possible 'encode' 5-6 different software versions into a
single (sensible) version number without losing information?
I think we can all quickly agree that we can't:
+1
I would also add: do we really *need* lossless encoding here?
yes we do.
Why?
you need a 1-to-1 mapping between the name and the software? (maybe i'm
missing the point of your question)
stijn
Ciao,
R
--
Riccardo Murri
http://www.gc3.uzh.ch/people/rm
Grid Computing Competence Centre
University of Zurich
Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich (Switzerland)
Tel: +41 44 635 4222
Fax: +41 44 635 6888
