Hi Kenneth, A bit more feedback - I am not sure action is actually needed. After upgrading to easybuild 2.8.1 I needed to run the vtune build with a force flag since the existence of the corrupt vtune module of the earlier build attempts made easybuild believe it was there. That is to be expected I think.
When running with force, I figured easybuild invokes the installer supplied by intel, which would not overwrite the old install from the earlier build. Easybuild figures that the installer doesn’t quite succeed and does not progress to the next steps (e.g. checking, module file). I sorted myself with an rm -rf on the “old" installation. As far as I am concerned that is fine with me. I just assumed that the “force” option is not heavily used. I think users of EB need to be aware, that depending on the features of the underlying install mechanism, the EB “force” option may not work. Whether it is worth figuring, I severely doubt. if you want it to work better: Is there EB option for removing a piece of software (module and install), which I have so far not figured? That might be a way around any potential issues. If you issue force: EB will delete the old install and create a new one. Though that might create another can of worms that installs suddenly lack prerequisites. As I said, I am personally happy with the current state of affairs. Best wishes Joachim On 07 Jun 2016, at 14:26, Joachim Hein <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Kenneth, Thanks for the quick reply. I had looked at the 2.8.1 release notes and must have overlooked the vtune update in there. So I was still on 2.8.0 (turning slightly read now) - thinking it was just a minor update ... EB 2.8.1 is currently testing. Best wishes Joachim On 07 Jun 2016, at 12:50, Kenneth Hoste <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Joachim, The VTune easyblock was updated recently to be made aware of this, see https://github.com/hpcugent/easybuild-easyblocks/pull/935 . We also already provide an easyconfig file for VTune 2016 update 3 (in EasyBuild v2.8.1), cfr. https://github.com/hpcugent/easybuild-easyconfigs/blob/master/easybuild/easyconfigs/v/VTune/VTune-2016_update3.eb . So, if you're using EasyBuild v2.8.1, you shouldn't be seeing this? regards, Kenneth On 07/06/16 11:09, Joachim Hein wrote: Hi, I am trying to build vtune 2016 update 3 using the easyconfig 2013 update 10. There is this complication that there is now an additional intermediate layer in the installation. For example using a simple tweak of the 2013_update_10 config, binaries are expected in (full path of our settings): /sw/easybuild/software/Core/VTune/2016_update3/bin64 but they are actually installed in /sw/easybuild/software/Core/VTune/2016_update3/vtune_amplifier_xe_2016.3.0.463186/bin64/ with soft-links: /sw/easybuild/software/Core/VTune/2016_update3/vtune_amplifier_xe/bin64/ /sw/easybuild/software/Core/VTune/2016_update3/vtune_amplifier_xe_2016/bin64/ So by modifying the config’s sanity_chack_paths arguments from: 18c18 < 'files': ["bin64/amplxe-runss", "bin64/amplxe-cl"], --- > 'files': ["vtune_amplifier_xe_2016/bin64/amplxe-runss", > "vtune_amplifier_xe_2016/bin64/amplxe-cl"], I should make it check ok, but that change is not communicated to the module creation. As a results the PATH, LD_LIBARARY_PATH, CPATH, etc are not created in the module file. Looking into the easy block, there seems a lot of “auto-guessing” going on. Is there an easy way (like the sanity_chack_path) to make it guess in a different base directory? Is that documented in the read the docs? Thanks and best wishes Joachim
