Kenneth Hoste <[email protected]> writes: > On 04/12/2018 08:09, Loris Bennett wrote: >> Dear Kenneth, >> >> I think the real problem is that the easyconfig is looking for >> >> orca_4_0_1_linux_x86-64_openmpi202.tar.xz >> >> whereas I have >> >> orca_4_0_1_2_linux_x86-64_openmpi202.tar.xz >> >> If this the case, then the list of paths checked is a bit misleading. > > How is it confusing? The error message clearly mentions the filename of the > source file EasyBuild is looking for (although the difference is easy to > overlook in this case, of course).
What confused me was not the name of the file, but the 'o/ORCA/o/ORCA' part of the path apparently searched: >> Couldn't find file orca_4_0_1_linux_x86-64_openmpi202.tar.xz anywhere, >> and downloading it didn't work either... >> Paths attempted (in order): >> >> /trinity/home/loris/shared/software/EasyBuild/3.7.1/lib/python2.7/site-packages/easybuild_easyconfigs-3.7.1-py2.7.egg/easybuild/easyconfigs/o/ORCA/o/ORCA/orca_4") Even if the file name were correct, it wouldn't be found there. Isn't the error message creating this path incorrectly? >> This raises the following question: What is the general approach in this >> case where a binary package is needed which may have a patch level >> beyond the version number the easyconfig is expecting? Should it have a >> separate easyconfig or can there be multiple patch levels within a >> single easyconfig? > > There's no (easy/clean) way to have multiple patch levels in a single > easyconfig. > > If you have a different source, you should use a (slightly) different > easyconfig > file. > > In this case, I consider this to be a different version entirely... Make sense. Thanks, Loris -- Dr. Loris Bennett (Mr.) ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin Email [email protected]
