Hi Joachim,
On 08/06/16 10:44, Joachim Hein wrote:
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.
Yes, if EasyBuild sees the module, it will not reinstall by default,
that's exactly what --force is for.
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.
If you use --force, EasyBuild should wipe the installation directory
before getting to the install script supplied by Intel...
Are you saying that didn't work as expected? If so, can you provide more
details on what went wrong exactly?
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.
There are situations in which --force is not reliable, but they should
be rare...
I used it quite often when testing pull requests, for example.
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.
We don't have a --uninstall option, exactly because we don't have a
mechanism in place to make sure no dependencies are broken, i.e. we
don't have reverse dependency tracking. Yet, see also
https://github.com/hpcugent/easybuild-framework/issues/590 .
regards,
Kenneth
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
