Hi Kenneth, Thanks for the reply. I truly appreciate all your effort and my initial comment was not meant to be a rant but just a feedback. In terms of policy, I believe that one of the things that would be very important to add to patches headers is if it is an EB related pacth (as in the numpy case) or if it is a bug fix patch taken from a specific source (I have seen some with it).
Davide On Nov 2 2016, at 8:49 am, Kenneth Hoste <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Davide, I think the numpy patch for MKL is required because the libraries that provide BLAS/LAPACK support in Intel MKL are spread out across multiple directories, which is not taken into account by the numpy build procedure. As was said, we have tried to make sure some context/comments are included in every patch file recently (and we could/should probably enforce that via a dedicated test in the easyconfigs test suite...). regards, Kenneth > On 29 Oct 2016, at 18:54, Fotis Georgatos <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Oct 28, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Ward Poelmans <[email protected]> wrote: >> Your absolutely right and we try to do this rigorously for all new >> patches. However for older patches, this is not always the case (as you >> have found). >> >> If you figure it out, don't hesitate to send a PR with a comment on what >> it does. > > +1 > > Also, several of these patches come from 3rd party sources, findable via a > URL; > > I was also trying in the early days to at least leave that as minimum > reference, > since it often describes the context of the patch (what, why, how etc) and, > it is > especially important for understanding which patch suites which software > version. > If possible, please include those URLs in your headers! > > Fotis > > -- > echo "sysadmin know better bash than english" | sed s/min/mins/ \ > | sed 's/better bash/bash better/' # signal detected in a CERN forum > > > > > > >
