Yes, this seems to make sense. I am increasingly realizing our use of Environment Module may need to end... .
Knowing better what --hide-deps and --hidden do I see these options will not get me what I want for my users. I found --recursive--module-unload, which will at least help my users, if only to avoid running 'module purge' which is probably a new module command for most of them. EasyBuild (and module) needs to show the complete module list for reproducibility. What I want is a way for users who are not familiar with how all this works to easily and simply use 'module load' and 'module list' to get and check they have the correct environments loaded. Due to the nature of EasyBuild, 'module list' displays a mind-boggling array of modules! I had hoped that families in Lmod might help, but I see now they do not. What I think Lmod needs is a run-time hierarchy. It loads modulefiles in a procedural way, so if 'module list' could show the parent module (the one which caused all the other modules to be loaded), that would solve the problem. Well, that, and the addition of a 'show parents only' option or default for 'module list'. Clearly this functionality needs to exist in Lmod, not EasyBuild. Thank you. Ben McGough System Administrator / Center IT - Scientific Computing / 206.667.7818 / [email protected] / Fred Hutch / Cures Start Here ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan O'Cais" <[email protected]> To: "easybuild" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:38:43 PM Subject: Re: [easybuild] Using hidden to clean up module list? Hi all, Personally I think an easier long term solution is a feature in the works for lmod (that I think Pablo mentioned) where you just tell lmod what to hide. That means you can do this kind of cleanup on the fly (today you might want netCDF hidden but tomorrow you might want to expose it). Alan On 22 Nov 2015 20:53, "Fotis Georgatos" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ken, all, > > On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:48 AM, Kenneth Hoste <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's just because --hide-deps does not apply to toolchains. I guess we > could extend it such that you can do that too. > > > > I'm not sure whether we should go with a --hide-toolchains here, or just > allow to list toolchains in --hide-deps. > > > > Any preference anyone? > > Allowing to list toolchains provides for more control granularity, so it > might prove more future-proof. > Could we invent a special operand (or the empty case) to default in the > other behaviour? > As long as all configurations become reachable, the “how” is just a matter > of taste against occam’s razor... > > F. > > -- > echo "sysadmin know better bash than english" | sed s/min/mins/ \ > | sed 's/better bash/bash better/' # signal detected in a CERN forum > > > > > > > >
