Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Lets wait until this potential problem materializes before we address it with a sourcing attribute. Dependencies should be appending or prepending to common paths or otherwise they should be setting up environment variables that are just required for that individual package or tool, so there should not be conflicts and if there are they probably should be corrected at the level of the tool dependency file. I will try to find some time to work on this, but if someone else beats me to it that would be fine too :). -John On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Björn Grüning wrote: > > >> The potential problem I see here is that environment variables are not >> name spaced in any way, so if all env.sh files are sourced no matter >> what, there is the potential for a certain environment variable to get >> set to a certain dependency version, and then later during the >> installation (assuming a hierarchy of repository dependencies), the >> same environment variable gets set to a different version of the same >> dependency. I'm not sure how often (if ever) this couls occur, but if >> it did, it the installation would not be as expected. > > > Mh possible, but really a rare corner case, I think. We could offer a > 'do-not-source-automatically' tag, to prevent such corner cases. > > > >> > I see, this makes perfect sense to me now, thanks! I certainly agree >> > that it should have to be spelled out twice unless there is a good >> > reason. I guess my preference would be to just see it inside of the >> > setup_perl_environment tag - why should it need to be at the >> > top-level >> > as well? There could be many implementation details that make this >> > difficult though, so obviously I delegate to Greg/Dave on this. > >> >> Just so I'm clear on this, is this what you want implemented as an >> enhancement to the setup_* tag sets? >> >> >> OR > type="setup_r_environment"> OR >> OR >>> name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" >> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >> >> >>> name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" >> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >> >> >> >> >> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the >> repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified >> environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action >> type. > > Yes, that would solve John's and my use case. > > Thanks Greg! > Bjoern > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two >> > > > one >> > > > that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that >> > > > is >> > > > checking or that needs these perl libs. >> > > >> > > We have discussed off list in another thread. Just to summarize my >> > > thoughts there - I think we should delay this or not make it a >> > > priority if there are marginally acceptable workarounds that can >> > > be >> > > found for the time being. Getting these four actions to work well >> > > as >> > > sort of terminal endpoints and allow specification as tersely as >> > > possible should be the primary goal for the time being. You will >> > > see >> > > Perl or Python packages depend on C libraries 10 times more >> > > frequently >> > > than you will find makefiles and C programs depend on complex perl >> > > or >> > > python environments (correct me if I am wrong). Given that there >> > > is >> > > already years worth of tool shed development outlined in existing >> > > Trello cards - this is just how I would prioritize things (happy >> > > to be >> > > overruled). >> > > >> > > Ok point taken. Lets focus on real issue. That use case is just a >> > > simplification / more structured way to write tool depdendecies, >> > > its not strictly needed to get my packages done. >> > > John just to make that use case clearer: >> > > - You have a package (A) with dependency (B) >> > > - B is not worth to put it in a extra repository (extra >> > > tool_dependencies.xml file) >> > > >> > > Currently, you are forced to define both in one tag, >> > > because if >> > > you define it in two tags A will not see B. >> > > The perl and python was a bad example you have that problem with >> > > every >> > > dependency that are not worth to put it in a separate repository. >> > > >> > > >> > > To summarize: >> > > I'm fine with that approach. It will address my current use case >> > > and it >> > > would be great to have it as proposed by Dave! >> > > >> > > Thanks a lot! >> > > Bjoern >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four >> > > > > currently >> > > > > supported setup_* action types? >> > > >> > > I think it would be best to tackle setup_r_environment and >> > > setup_ruby_environment first. setup_virtualenv cannot have nested >> > > elements at this time - it is just assumed to be a bunch of text >> > > (either a file containing the dependencies or a list of the >> > > dependencies). >> > > >> > > So setup_r_environment and setup_ruby_env
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
> The potential problem I see here is that environment variables are not > name spaced in any way, so if all env.sh files are sourced no matter > what, there is the potential for a certain environment variable to get > set to a certain dependency version, and then later during the > installation (assuming a hierarchy of repository dependencies), the > same environment variable gets set to a different version of the same > dependency. I'm not sure how often (if ever) this couls occur, but if > it did, it the installation would not be as expected. Mh possible, but really a rare corner case, I think. We could offer a 'do-not-source-automatically' tag, to prevent such corner cases. > > I see, this makes perfect sense to me now, thanks! I certainly agree > > that it should have to be spelled out twice unless there is a good > > reason. I guess my preference would be to just see it inside of the > > setup_perl_environment tag - why should it need to be at the > > top-level > > as well? There could be many implementation details that make this > > difficult though, so obviously I delegate to Greg/Dave on this. > > Just so I'm clear on this, is this what you want implemented as an > enhancement to the setup_* tag sets? > > > OR type="setup_r_environment"> OR > OR > name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> > > > name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> > > > > > For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the > repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified > environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action > type. Yes, that would solve John's and my use case. Thanks Greg! Bjoern > > > > > > > > > > Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two > > > > one > > > > that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that > > > > is > > > > checking or that needs these perl libs. > > > > > > We have discussed off list in another thread. Just to summarize my > > > thoughts there - I think we should delay this or not make it a > > > priority if there are marginally acceptable workarounds that can > > > be > > > found for the time being. Getting these four actions to work well > > > as > > > sort of terminal endpoints and allow specification as tersely as > > > possible should be the primary goal for the time being. You will > > > see > > > Perl or Python packages depend on C libraries 10 times more > > > frequently > > > than you will find makefiles and C programs depend on complex perl > > > or > > > python environments (correct me if I am wrong). Given that there > > > is > > > already years worth of tool shed development outlined in existing > > > Trello cards - this is just how I would prioritize things (happy > > > to be > > > overruled). > > > > > > Ok point taken. Lets focus on real issue. That use case is just a > > > simplification / more structured way to write tool depdendecies, > > > its not strictly needed to get my packages done. > > > John just to make that use case clearer: > > > - You have a package (A) with dependency (B) > > > - B is not worth to put it in a extra repository (extra > > > tool_dependencies.xml file) > > > > > > Currently, you are forced to define both in one tag, > > > because if > > > you define it in two tags A will not see B. > > > The perl and python was a bad example you have that problem with > > > every > > > dependency that are not worth to put it in a separate repository. > > > > > > > > > To summarize: > > > I'm fine with that approach. It will address my current use case > > > and it > > > would be great to have it as proposed by Dave! > > > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > Bjoern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four > > > > > currently > > > > > supported setup_* action types? > > > > > > I think it would be best to tackle setup_r_environment and > > > setup_ruby_environment first. setup_virtualenv cannot have nested > > > elements at this time - it is just assumed to be a bunch of text > > > (either a file containing the dependencies or a list of the > > > dependencies). > > > > > > So setup_r_environment and setup_ruby_environment have the same > > > structure: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... but setup_virtualenv is just > > > > > > requests=1.20 > > > pycurl==1.3 > > > > > > I have created a Trello card for this: > > > https://trello.com/c/NsLJv9la > > > (and some other related stuff). > > > > > > Once that is tackled though, it will make sense to allow > > > setup_virtualenv to utilize the same functionality. > > > > > > Thanks all, > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > I think it will solve my current issues. > > > > > > > > > Based on your response, Greg or I will implement this as soon > > > > > as > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Bjoern > > >
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Please see my inline comments. Thanks! Greg Von Kuster On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:33 PM, John Chilton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Björn Grüning > wrote: >> Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2013, 00:25 -0600 schrieb John Chilton: >> >> My two cents below. >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Björn Grüning >> wrote: >>> Hi Dave, >>> We're thinking that the following approach makes the most sense: OR >>> type="setup_r_environment"> OR OR >>> name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >>> name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. Would this work for your use cases? >>> >>> Yes, the first one. But its a little bit to verbose or? Include the perl >>> repository in a setup_perl environment should be implicit or? We can >>> assume that this need to be present. >>> Do you have example why sourcing every by default can be >>> harmful? It would make such an installation so much easier and less >>> complex. >> >> I am not sure I understand this paragraph - I have a vague sense I >> agree but is there any chance you could rephrase this or elaborate? >> >> My first use case will be addressed by this suggestion. I had hoped that we >> can create a less verbose syntax. >> If we I specify a package at the top of my xml file: >> >> >> >>> prior_installation_required="True" /> >> >> >> I need to repeat it either in a >> or in a . >> My hope was to get rid of these. Once a package definition is >> specified/build, every ENV var is available in any downstream . >> But if there is any downsides or pitfalls this more verbose and explicit >> syntax will work for my usecase. The potential problem I see here is that environment variables are not name spaced in any way, so if all env.sh files are sourced no matter what, there is the potential for a certain environment variable to get set to a certain dependency version, and then later during the installation (assuming a hierarchy of repository dependencies), the same environment variable gets set to a different version of the same dependency. I'm not sure how often (if ever) this couls occur, but if it did, it the installation would not be as expected. >> > > I see, this makes perfect sense to me now, thanks! I certainly agree > that it should have to be spelled out twice unless there is a good > reason. I guess my preference would be to just see it inside of the > setup_perl_environment tag - why should it need to be at the top-level > as well? There could be many implementation details that make this > difficult though, so obviously I delegate to Greg/Dave on this. Just so I'm clear on this, is this what you want implemented as an enhancement to the setup_* tag sets? OR OR OR http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. > >>> >>> Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two one >>> that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that is >>> checking or that needs these perl libs. >> >> We have discussed off list in another thread. Just to summarize my >> thoughts there - I think we should delay this or not make it a >> priority if there are marginally acceptable workarounds that can be >> found for the time being. Getting these four actions to work well as >> sort of terminal endpoints and allow specification as tersely as >> possible should be the primary goal for the time being. You will see >> Perl or Python packages depend on C libraries 10 times more frequently >> than you will find makefiles and C programs depend on complex perl or >> python environments (correct me if I am wrong). Given that there is >> already years worth of tool shed development outlined in existing >> Trello cards - this is just how I would prioritize things (happy to be >> overruled). >> >> Ok point taken. Lets focus on real issue. That use case is just a >> simplification / more structured way to write tool depdendecies, >> its not strictly needed to get my packages done. >> John just to make that use case clearer: >> - You have a package (A) with dependency (B) >> - B is not worth to put it in a extra repository (extra >> tool_dependencies.xml file) >> >> Currently, you are forced to define both in one tag, because if >> you define it in two tags A will not see B. >> The perl and python was a bad example you have that problem with every
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Björn Grüning wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2013, 00:25 -0600 schrieb John Chilton: > > My two cents below. > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Björn Grüning > wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> >>> We're thinking that the following approach makes the most sense: >>> >>> OR >> type="setup_r_environment"> OR OR >>> >>> >> name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" >>> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >>> >>> >>> >> name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" >>> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the >>> repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified >>> environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. >>> >>> Would this work for your use cases? >> >> Yes, the first one. But its a little bit to verbose or? Include the perl >> repository in a setup_perl environment should be implicit or? We can >> assume that this need to be present. >> Do you have example why sourcing every by default can be >> harmful? It would make such an installation so much easier and less >> complex. > > I am not sure I understand this paragraph - I have a vague sense I > agree but is there any chance you could rephrase this or elaborate? > > My first use case will be addressed by this suggestion. I had hoped that we > can create a less verbose syntax. > If we I specify a package at the top of my xml file: > > > > prior_installation_required="True" /> > > > I need to repeat it either in a > or in a . > My hope was to get rid of these. Once a package definition is > specified/build, every ENV var is available in any downstream . > But if there is any downsides or pitfalls this more verbose and explicit > syntax will work for my usecase. > I see, this makes perfect sense to me now, thanks! I certainly agree that it should have to be spelled out twice unless there is a good reason. I guess my preference would be to just see it inside of the setup_perl_environment tag - why should it need to be at the top-level as well? There could be many implementation details that make this difficult though, so obviously I delegate to Greg/Dave on this. >> >> Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two one >> that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that is >> checking or that needs these perl libs. > > We have discussed off list in another thread. Just to summarize my > thoughts there - I think we should delay this or not make it a > priority if there are marginally acceptable workarounds that can be > found for the time being. Getting these four actions to work well as > sort of terminal endpoints and allow specification as tersely as > possible should be the primary goal for the time being. You will see > Perl or Python packages depend on C libraries 10 times more frequently > than you will find makefiles and C programs depend on complex perl or > python environments (correct me if I am wrong). Given that there is > already years worth of tool shed development outlined in existing > Trello cards - this is just how I would prioritize things (happy to be > overruled). > > Ok point taken. Lets focus on real issue. That use case is just a > simplification / more structured way to write tool depdendecies, > its not strictly needed to get my packages done. > John just to make that use case clearer: > - You have a package (A) with dependency (B) > - B is not worth to put it in a extra repository (extra > tool_dependencies.xml file) > > Currently, you are forced to define both in one tag, because if > you define it in two tags A will not see B. > The perl and python was a bad example you have that problem with every > dependency that are not worth to put it in a separate repository. > > > To summarize: > I'm fine with that approach. It will address my current use case and it > would be great to have it as proposed by Dave! > > Thanks a lot! > Bjoern > > >> >>> If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four currently >>> supported setup_* action types? > > I think it would be best to tackle setup_r_environment and > setup_ruby_environment first. setup_virtualenv cannot have nested > elements at this time - it is just assumed to be a bunch of text > (either a file containing the dependencies or a list of the > dependencies). > > So setup_r_environment and setup_ruby_environment have the same structure: > > > > > > > > ... but setup_virtualenv is just > > requests=1.20 > pycurl==1.3 > > I have created a Trello card for this: https://trello.com/c/NsLJv9la > (and some other related stuff). > > Once that is tackled though, it will make sense to allow > setup_virtualenv to utilize the same functionality. > > Thanks all, > -John > >> >> I think it will solve my current issues. >> >>> Based on your response, Greg or I will implement this as soon as >>> possible. >> >> Thanks! >> Bjoer
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2013, 00:25 -0600 schrieb John Chilton: > My two cents below. > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Björn Grüning > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > >> We're thinking that the following approach makes the most sense: > >> > >> OR >> type="setup_r_environment"> OR OR > >> > >> >> name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" > >> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> > >> > >> > >> >> name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" > >> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the > >> repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified > >> environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. > >> > >> Would this work for your use cases? > > > > Yes, the first one. But its a little bit to verbose or? Include the perl > > repository in a setup_perl environment should be implicit or? We can > > assume that this need to be present. > > Do you have example why sourcing every by default can be > > harmful? It would make such an installation so much easier and less > > complex. > > I am not sure I understand this paragraph - I have a vague sense I > agree but is there any chance you could rephrase this or elaborate? My first use case will be addressed by this suggestion. I had hoped that we can create a less verbose syntax. If we I specify a package at the top of my xml file: I need to repeat it either in a or in a . My hope was to get rid of these. Once a package definition is specified/build, every ENV var is available in any downstream . But if there is any downsides or pitfalls this more verbose and explicit syntax will work for my usecase. > > > > Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two one > > that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that is > > checking or that needs these perl libs. > > We have discussed off list in another thread. Just to summarize my > thoughts there - I think we should delay this or not make it a > priority if there are marginally acceptable workarounds that can be > found for the time being. Getting these four actions to work well as > sort of terminal endpoints and allow specification as tersely as > possible should be the primary goal for the time being. You will see > Perl or Python packages depend on C libraries 10 times more frequently > than you will find makefiles and C programs depend on complex perl or > python environments (correct me if I am wrong). Given that there is > already years worth of tool shed development outlined in existing > Trello cards - this is just how I would prioritize things (happy to be > overruled). Ok point taken. Lets focus on real issue. That use case is just a simplification / more structured way to write tool depdendecies, its not strictly needed to get my packages done. John just to make that use case clearer: - You have a package (A) with dependency (B) - B is not worth to put it in a extra repository (extra tool_dependencies.xml file) Currently, you are forced to define both in one tag, because if you define it in two tags A will not see B. The perl and python was a bad example you have that problem with every dependency that are not worth to put it in a separate repository. To summarize: I'm fine with that approach. It will address my current use case and it would be great to have it as proposed by Dave! Thanks a lot! Bjoern > > > >> If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four currently > >> supported setup_* action types? > > I think it would be best to tackle setup_r_environment and > setup_ruby_environment first. setup_virtualenv cannot have nested > elements at this time - it is just assumed to be a bunch of text > (either a file containing the dependencies or a list of the > dependencies). > > So setup_r_environment and setup_ruby_environment have the same structure: > > > > > > > > ... but setup_virtualenv is just > > requests=1.20 > pycurl==1.3 > > I have created a Trello card for this: https://trello.com/c/NsLJv9la > (and some other related stuff). > > Once that is tackled though, it will make sense to allow > setup_virtualenv to utilize the same functionality. > > Thanks all, > -John > > > > > I think it will solve my current issues. > > > >> Based on your response, Greg or I will implement this as soon as possible. > > > > Thanks! > > Bjoern > > > >> --Dave B. > >> > >> On 11/06/2013 03:05 AM, Björn Grüning wrote: > >> > Hi John, > >> > > >> >> Perl complicates things, TPP complicates things greatly. > >> > > >> > So true, so true ... > >> > > >> >> Bjoern, can I ask you if this hypothetical exhibits the same problem > >> >> and can be used to reason about these things more easily and drive a > >> >> test implementation. > >> > > >> > Yes to both questions :) > >> > > >> >> So right now, Galaxy has setup_virtualenv which will build and
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
My two cents below. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Björn Grüning wrote: > Hi Dave, > >> We're thinking that the following approach makes the most sense: >> >> OR > type="setup_r_environment"> OR OR >> >> > name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" >> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >> >> >> > name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" >> toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> >> >> >> >> >> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the >> repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified >> environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. >> >> Would this work for your use cases? > > Yes, the first one. But its a little bit to verbose or? Include the perl > repository in a setup_perl environment should be implicit or? We can > assume that this need to be present. > Do you have example why sourcing every by default can be > harmful? It would make such an installation so much easier and less > complex. I am not sure I understand this paragraph - I have a vague sense I agree but is there any chance you could rephrase this or elaborate? > > Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two one > that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that is > checking or that needs these perl libs. We have discussed off list in another thread. Just to summarize my thoughts there - I think we should delay this or not make it a priority if there are marginally acceptable workarounds that can be found for the time being. Getting these four actions to work well as sort of terminal endpoints and allow specification as tersely as possible should be the primary goal for the time being. You will see Perl or Python packages depend on C libraries 10 times more frequently than you will find makefiles and C programs depend on complex perl or python environments (correct me if I am wrong). Given that there is already years worth of tool shed development outlined in existing Trello cards - this is just how I would prioritize things (happy to be overruled). > >> If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four currently >> supported setup_* action types? I think it would be best to tackle setup_r_environment and setup_ruby_environment first. setup_virtualenv cannot have nested elements at this time - it is just assumed to be a bunch of text (either a file containing the dependencies or a list of the dependencies). So setup_r_environment and setup_ruby_environment have the same structure: ... but setup_virtualenv is just requests=1.20 pycurl==1.3 I have created a Trello card for this: https://trello.com/c/NsLJv9la (and some other related stuff). Once that is tackled though, it will make sense to allow setup_virtualenv to utilize the same functionality. Thanks all, -John > > I think it will solve my current issues. > >> Based on your response, Greg or I will implement this as soon as possible. > > Thanks! > Bjoern > >> --Dave B. >> >> On 11/06/2013 03:05 AM, Björn Grüning wrote: >> > Hi John, >> > >> >> Perl complicates things, TPP complicates things greatly. >> > >> > So true, so true ... >> > >> >> Bjoern, can I ask you if this hypothetical exhibits the same problem >> >> and can be used to reason about these things more easily and drive a >> >> test implementation. >> > >> > Yes to both questions :) >> > >> >> So right now, Galaxy has setup_virtualenv which will build and install >> >> Python packages in a virtual environment. However, some Python >> >> packages have C library dependencies that could prevent them from >> >> being installed. >> >> >> >> As a specific example - take PyTables (install via "pip install >> >> tables") - which is a package for managing hierarchical datasets. If >> >> you try to install this with pip the way Galaxy will - it will fail if >> >> you do not have libhdf5 installed. So at a high-level, it would be >> >> nice if the tool shed had a libhdf5 definition and the dependencies >> >> file had some mechanism for declaring libhdf5 should be installed >> >> before a setup_virtualenv containing "tables" and its environment >> >> configured properly so the pip install succeeds (maybe just >> >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH needs to be set). >> > >> > Indeed, same problem. I think we have this problem in every high-level >> > install methodm because is not allowed as >> > first action tag. >> > >> > Can you think of any case where ENV vars can conflict with each other, >> > besides set_to, and assuming that we source every env.sh file by default >> > for every specified . >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Bjoern >> > >> >> -John >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Björn Grüning >> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Greg, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Hello Bjoern, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> Hi Greg, >> >> I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled >> about
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Hi Dave, > We're thinking that the following approach makes the most sense: > > OR type="setup_r_environment"> OR OR > > name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> > > > name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> > > > > > For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the > repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified > environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. > > Would this work for your use cases? Yes, the first one. But its a little bit to verbose or? Include the perl repository in a setup_perl environment should be implicit or? We can assume that this need to be present. Do you have example why sourcing every by default can be harmful? It would make such an installation so much easier and less complex. Also that did not solve the second use case. If have two one that is installing perl libraries and the second a binary that is checking or that needs these perl libs. > If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four currently > supported setup_* action types? I think it will solve my current issues. > Based on your response, Greg or I will implement this as soon as possible. Thanks! Bjoern > --Dave B. > > On 11/06/2013 03:05 AM, Björn Grüning wrote: > > Hi John, > > > >> Perl complicates things, TPP complicates things greatly. > > > > So true, so true ... > > > >> Bjoern, can I ask you if this hypothetical exhibits the same problem > >> and can be used to reason about these things more easily and drive a > >> test implementation. > > > > Yes to both questions :) > > > >> So right now, Galaxy has setup_virtualenv which will build and install > >> Python packages in a virtual environment. However, some Python > >> packages have C library dependencies that could prevent them from > >> being installed. > >> > >> As a specific example - take PyTables (install via "pip install > >> tables") - which is a package for managing hierarchical datasets. If > >> you try to install this with pip the way Galaxy will - it will fail if > >> you do not have libhdf5 installed. So at a high-level, it would be > >> nice if the tool shed had a libhdf5 definition and the dependencies > >> file had some mechanism for declaring libhdf5 should be installed > >> before a setup_virtualenv containing "tables" and its environment > >> configured properly so the pip install succeeds (maybe just > >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH needs to be set). > > > > Indeed, same problem. I think we have this problem in every high-level > > install methodm because is not allowed as > > first action tag. > > > > Can you think of any case where ENV vars can conflict with each other, > > besides set_to, and assuming that we source every env.sh file by default > > for every specified . > > > > Cheers, > > Bjoern > > > >> -John > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Björn Grüning > >> wrote: > >>> Hi Greg, > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello Bjoern, > >>> > >>> > >>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi Greg, > > I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about > a tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, > python > and R). > > The Problem: > Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ > (Z). > (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no > way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, > because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. > >>> > >>> > >>> The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual > >>> xml > >>> recipe that provides some context? > >>> > >>> Attached, please see a detailed explanation at the bottom. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about > these solutions: > > - hackish solution: > I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ > 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and > remove > it from action type afterwards > >>> > >>> Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach > >>> without > >>> an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means > >>> it > >>> is not ideal. ;) > >>> > >>> :) > >>> > > - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless > if set_environment_for_install is set or not. > >>> > >>> > >>> I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could > >>> fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single > >>> installation, > >>> so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is > >>> expected. > >>> > >>> What means conflicting ENV vars, I only
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Björn, We're thinking that the following approach makes the most sense: OR type="setup_r_environment"> OR OR name="package_perl_5_18" owner="iuc" toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu";> For all tag sets contained within these setup_* tags, the repository's env.sh would be pulled in for the setup of the specified environment without requiring a set_environment_for_install action type. Would this work for your use cases? If so, can you confirm that this should be done for all four currently supported setup_* action types? Based on your response, Greg or I will implement this as soon as possible. --Dave B. On 11/06/2013 03:05 AM, Björn Grüning wrote: Hi John, Perl complicates things, TPP complicates things greatly. So true, so true ... Bjoern, can I ask you if this hypothetical exhibits the same problem and can be used to reason about these things more easily and drive a test implementation. Yes to both questions :) So right now, Galaxy has setup_virtualenv which will build and install Python packages in a virtual environment. However, some Python packages have C library dependencies that could prevent them from being installed. As a specific example - take PyTables (install via "pip install tables") - which is a package for managing hierarchical datasets. If you try to install this with pip the way Galaxy will - it will fail if you do not have libhdf5 installed. So at a high-level, it would be nice if the tool shed had a libhdf5 definition and the dependencies file had some mechanism for declaring libhdf5 should be installed before a setup_virtualenv containing "tables" and its environment configured properly so the pip install succeeds (maybe just LD_LIBRARY_PATH needs to be set). Indeed, same problem. I think we have this problem in every high-level install methodm because is not allowed as first action tag. Can you think of any case where ENV vars can conflict with each other, besides set_to, and assuming that we source every env.sh file by default for every specified . Cheers, Bjoern -John On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Björn Grüning wrote: Hi Greg, Hello Bjoern, On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening wrote: Hi Greg, I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about a tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, python and R). The Problem: Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual xml recipe that provides some context? Attached, please see a detailed explanation at the bottom. I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about these solutions: - hackish solution: I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and remove it from action type afterwards Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach without an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means it is not ideal. ;) :) - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless if set_environment_for_install is set or not. I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single installation, so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is expected. What means conflicting ENV vars, I only can imagine multiple set_to that overwrite each other. append_to and prepend_to should be save or? I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is actually needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a I want the ENV vars sourced. Hmmm…so you are saying that you want the be able to define the above tag set inside of an tag set and have everything work? Oh no, I mean just have it as package like it is but source the env.sh file for every other set automatically. So you do not need . In the attached example: http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu"; /> Is not imported with so its actually useless (now). But the env.sh needs to be sourced during the "setup_perl_environment" part. I think this may cause problems because I believe the tag set restricts activity to only the time when a dependent repository will be using the defined environment from the required repository in order to compile one or more of it's dependencies. Eliminating this restriction may cause problems after compilation. ALthough I cannot state this as a definite fact. Furthermore, tha
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Hi John, > Perl complicates things, TPP complicates things greatly. So true, so true ... > Bjoern, can I ask you if this hypothetical exhibits the same problem > and can be used to reason about these things more easily and drive a > test implementation. Yes to both questions :) > So right now, Galaxy has setup_virtualenv which will build and install > Python packages in a virtual environment. However, some Python > packages have C library dependencies that could prevent them from > being installed. > > As a specific example - take PyTables (install via "pip install > tables") - which is a package for managing hierarchical datasets. If > you try to install this with pip the way Galaxy will - it will fail if > you do not have libhdf5 installed. So at a high-level, it would be > nice if the tool shed had a libhdf5 definition and the dependencies > file had some mechanism for declaring libhdf5 should be installed > before a setup_virtualenv containing "tables" and its environment > configured properly so the pip install succeeds (maybe just > LD_LIBRARY_PATH needs to be set). Indeed, same problem. I think we have this problem in every high-level install methodm because is not allowed as first action tag. Can you think of any case where ENV vars can conflict with each other, besides set_to, and assuming that we source every env.sh file by default for every specified . Cheers, Bjoern > -John > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Björn Grüning > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > Hello Bjoern, > > > > > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Greg, > >> > >> I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about > >> a tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, > >> python > >> and R). > >> > >> The Problem: > >> Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). > >> (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no > >> way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, > >> because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. > > > > > > The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual xml > > recipe that provides some context? > > > > Attached, please see a detailed explanation at the bottom. > > > > > > > >> > >> I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about > >> these solutions: > >> > >> - hackish solution: > >> I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ > >> 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and > >> remove > >> it from action type afterwards > > > > Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach without > > an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means it > > is not ideal. ;) > > > > :) > > > >> > >> - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless > >> if set_environment_for_install is set or not. > > > > > > I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could > > fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single > > installation, > > so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is expected. > > > > What means conflicting ENV vars, I only can imagine multiple set_to that > > overwrite each other. append_to and prepend_to should be save or? > > > > > > > >> I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is > >> actually needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a > >> > >> > >> >> prior_installation_required="True" /> > >> > >> > >> I want the ENV vars sourced. > > > > Hmmm…so you are saying that you want the be able to define the above > > tag set inside of an tag set and have everything work? > > > > > > Oh no, I mean just have it as package like it is but source the env.sh file > > for every other set automatically. So you do not need > > . > > > > In the attached example: > > > > > name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" prior_installation_required="True" > > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu"; /> > > > > > > Is not imported with so its actually useless > > (now). But the env.sh needs to be sourced during the > > "setup_perl_environment" part. > > > > I think this may cause problems because I believe the > > tag set restricts activity to only the time > > when a dependent > > repository will be using the defined environment from the required > > repository in order to compile one or more of it's dependencies. > > Eliminating this restriction may cause problems after compilation. ALthough > > I cannot state this as a definite fact. > > > >> Furthermore, that can solve an other issue: Namely, the need of ENV vars > >> from a package definition in the same file. Lets imagine package P has > >> dependency D and you want to download compile both in one > >> tool_dependencies.xml file. > >> You can either do it in one definiti
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Perl complicates things, TPP complicates things greatly. Bjoern, can I ask you if this hypothetical exhibits the same problem and can be used to reason about these things more easily and drive a test implementation. So right now, Galaxy has setup_virtualenv which will build and install Python packages in a virtual environment. However, some Python packages have C library dependencies that could prevent them from being installed. As a specific example - take PyTables (install via "pip install tables") - which is a package for managing hierarchical datasets. If you try to install this with pip the way Galaxy will - it will fail if you do not have libhdf5 installed. So at a high-level, it would be nice if the tool shed had a libhdf5 definition and the dependencies file had some mechanism for declaring libhdf5 should be installed before a setup_virtualenv containing "tables" and its environment configured properly so the pip install succeeds (maybe just LD_LIBRARY_PATH needs to be set). -John On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Björn Grüning wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > Hello Bjoern, > > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening > wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about >> a tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, python >> and R). >> >> The Problem: >> Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). >> (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no >> way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, >> because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. > > > The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual xml > recipe that provides some context? > > Attached, please see a detailed explanation at the bottom. > > > >> >> I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about >> these solutions: >> >> - hackish solution: >> I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ >> 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and remove >> it from action type afterwards > > Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach without > an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means it > is not ideal. ;) > > :) > >> >> - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless >> if set_environment_for_install is set or not. > > > I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could > fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single > installation, > so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is expected. > > What means conflicting ENV vars, I only can imagine multiple set_to that > overwrite each other. append_to and prepend_to should be save or? > > > >> I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is >> actually needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a >> >> >> > prior_installation_required="True" /> >> >> >> I want the ENV vars sourced. > > Hmmm…so you are saying that you want the be able to define the above > tag set inside of an tag set and have everything work? > > > Oh no, I mean just have it as package like it is but source the env.sh file > for every other set automatically. So you do not need > . > > In the attached example: > > name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" prior_installation_required="True" > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu"; /> > > > Is not imported with so its actually useless > (now). But the env.sh needs to be sourced during the > "setup_perl_environment" part. > > I think this may cause problems because I believe the > tag set restricts activity to only the time > when a dependent > repository will be using the defined environment from the required > repository in order to compile one or more of it's dependencies. > Eliminating this restriction may cause problems after compilation. ALthough > I cannot state this as a definite fact. > >> Furthermore, that can solve an other issue: Namely, the need of ENV vars >> from a package definition in the same file. Lets imagine package P has >> dependency D and you want to download compile both in one >> tool_dependencies.xml file. >> You can either do it in one definition or you need to split them >> up in 2 tool_dependencies.xml files, rigth? >> Maybe we can just assume a strict order in a tool_dependencies.xml file, >> where every ENV vars are sourced for the following one? Does that make >> sense? > > It may make sense, but without an example it's diffiecult to answer this for > sure. Can you provide some xml recipes that use your different proposals? > > > Sure, attached. > Its quite complicated. > > - TPP needs libgd to compile C-Code (no problem). > - TPP needs some perl libs and perl -> "setup_perl_environment" (at runtime) >- no problem until one of these perl packages (here XML-P
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Thanks Björn, We'll have to digest this a bit and we'll get back to you. Greg Von Kuster On Nov 5, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Björn Grüning wrote: > Hi Greg, > >> Hello Bjoern, >> >> >> On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Greg, >> > >> > I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about >> > a tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, >> > python and R). >> > >> > The Problem: >> > Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). >> > (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no >> > way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, >> > because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. >> >> >> The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual xml >> recipe that provides some context? > > Attached, please see a detailed explanation at the bottom. > >> >> > >> > I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about >> > these solutions: >> > >> > - hackish solution: >> > I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ >> > 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and >> > remove it from action type afterwards >> >> Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach without >> an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means it >> is not ideal. ;) > > :) > >> > >> > - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless >> > if set_environment_for_install is set or not. >> >> >> I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could >> fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single >> installation, >> so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is expected. > > What means conflicting ENV vars, I only can imagine multiple set_to that > overwrite each other. append_to and prepend_to should be save or? > >> >> > I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is >> > actually needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a >> > >> > >> > > > prior_installation_required="True" /> >> > >> > >> > I want the ENV vars sourced. >> >> Hmmm…so you are saying that you want the be able to define the above >> tag set inside of an tag set and have everything work? > > Oh no, I mean just have it as package like it is but source the env.sh file > for every other set automatically. So you do not need > . > > In the attached example: > > name="package_expat_2_1" owner="iuc" prior_installation_required="True" > toolshed="http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu"; /> > > > Is not imported with so its actually useless > (now). But the env.sh needs to be sourced during the "setup_perl_environment" > part. > >> I think this may cause problems because I believe the >> tag set restricts activity to only the time >> when a dependent >> repository will be using the defined environment from the required >> repository in order to compile one or more of it's dependencies. >> Eliminating this restriction may cause problems after compilation. ALthough >> I cannot state this as a definite fact. >> >> > Furthermore, that can solve an other issue: Namely, the need of ENV vars >> > from a package definition in the same file. Lets imagine package P has >> > dependency D and you want to download compile both in one >> > tool_dependencies.xml file. >> > You can either do it in one definition or you need to split them >> > up in 2 tool_dependencies.xml files, rigth? >> > Maybe we can just assume a strict order in a tool_dependencies.xml file, >> > where every ENV vars are sourced for the following one? Does that make >> > sense? >> >> It may make sense, but without an example it's diffiecult to answer this for >> sure. Can you provide some xml recipes that use your different proposals? > > Sure, attached. > Its quite complicated. > > - TPP needs libgd to compile C-Code (no problem). > - TPP needs some perl libs and perl -> "setup_perl_environment" (at runtime) >- no problem until one of these perl packages (here XML-Parser) needs a C > library (expat) > - I don't see how to source expat during "setup_perl_environment" > - TPP needs perl (at compile time) ... It would be more readable or logical > to separate this recipe into two parts: TPP and Perl libraries > > Something like that: > > . > set PERL5LIBS > > > > Here I need the PERL5LIBS > > > - I don't see any way to get the PERL5LIBS from the perl libraries into a > separate section which tries to compile TPP. > >> > Any other ideas? >> >> Not yet, but possibly after your next response. ;) > > :) Here we go! > Thanks Greg! > Bjoern > >> >> > Thanks, >> > Bjoern >> >> Thanks! >> >> Greg Von Kuster >> >> >> > >
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Hi Greg, > Hello Bjoern, > > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening > wrote: > > > Hi Greg, > > > > I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about a > > tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, python > > and R). > > > > The Problem: > > Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). > > (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no > > way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, > > because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. > > > The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual xml > recipe that provides some context? Attached, please see a detailed explanation at the bottom. > > > > > I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about > > these solutions: > > > > - hackish solution: > > I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ > > 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and > > remove it from action type afterwards > > Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach without > an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means it > is not ideal. ;) :) > > > > - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless > > if set_environment_for_install is set or not. > > > I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could > fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single > installation, > so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is expected. What means conflicting ENV vars, I only can imagine multiple set_to that overwrite each other. append_to and prepend_to should be save or? > > > I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is > > actually needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a > > > > > > > prior_installation_required="True" /> > > > > > > I want the ENV vars sourced. > > Hmmm…so you are saying that you want the be able to define the above > tag set inside of an tag set and have everything work? Oh no, I mean just have it as package like it is but source the env.sh file for every other set automatically. So you do not need . In the attached example: http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu"; /> Is not imported with so its actually useless (now). But the env.sh needs to be sourced during the "setup_perl_environment" part. > I think this may cause problems because I believe the > tag set restricts activity to only the time > when a dependent > repository will be using the defined environment from the required repository > in order to compile one or more of it's dependencies. > Eliminating this restriction may cause problems after compilation. ALthough > I cannot state this as a definite fact. > > > Furthermore, that can solve an other issue: Namely, the need of ENV vars > > from a package definition in the same file. Lets imagine package P has > > dependency D and you want to download compile both in one > > tool_dependencies.xml file. > > You can either do it in one definition or you need to split them > > up in 2 tool_dependencies.xml files, rigth? > > Maybe we can just assume a strict order in a tool_dependencies.xml file, > > where every ENV vars are sourced for the following one? Does that make > > sense? > > It may make sense, but without an example it's diffiecult to answer this for > sure. Can you provide some xml recipes that use your different proposals? Sure, attached. Its quite complicated. - TPP needs libgd to compile C-Code (no problem). - TPP needs some perl libs and perl -> "setup_perl_environment" (at runtime) - no problem until one of these perl packages (here XML-Parser) needs a C library (expat) - I don't see how to source expat during "setup_perl_environment" - TPP needs perl (at compile time) ... It would be more readable or logical to separate this recipe into two parts: TPP and Perl libraries Something like that: . set PERL5LIBS Here I need the PERL5LIBS - I don't see any way to get the PERL5LIBS from the perl libraries into a separate section which tries to compile TPP. > > Any other ideas? > > Not yet, but possibly after your next response. ;) :) Here we go! Thanks Greg! Bjoern > > > Thanks, > > Bjoern > > Thanks! > > Greg Von Kuster > > > tool_dependencies.xml Description: XML document ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
Re: [galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Hello Bjoern, On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Bjoern Gruening wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about a > tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, python > and R). > > The Problem: > Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). > (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no way > to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, because > setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. The above is fairly difficult to understand - can you provide an actual xml recipe that provides some context? > > I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about > these solutions: > > - hackish solution: > I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ > 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and remove > it from action type afterwards Again, it's difficult to provide good feedback on the above approach without an example recipe. However, your "hackish solution" term probably means it is not ideal. ;) > > - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless if > set_environment_for_install is set or not. I don't think the above approach would be ideal. It seems that it could fairly easily create conflicting environment variables within a single installation, so the latest value for an environment variable may not be what is expected. > I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is actually > needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a > > > prior_installation_required="True" /> > > > I want the ENV vars sourced. Hmmm…so you are saying that you want the be able to define the above tag set inside of an tag set and have everything work? I think this may cause problems because I believe the tag set restricts activity to only the time when a dependent repository will be using the defined environment from the required repository in order to compile one or more of it's dependencies. Eliminating this restriction may cause problems after compilation. ALthough I cannot state this as a definite fact. > Furthermore, that can solve an other issue: Namely, the need of ENV vars from > a package definition in the same file. Lets imagine package P has dependency > D and you want to download compile both in one tool_dependencies.xml file. > You can either do it in one definition or you need to split them up > in 2 tool_dependencies.xml files, rigth? > Maybe we can just assume a strict order in a tool_dependencies.xml file, > where every ENV vars are sourced for the following one? Does that make sense? It may make sense, but without an example it's diffiecult to answer this for sure. Can you provide some xml recipes that use your different proposals? > > Any other ideas? Not yet, but possibly after your next response. ;) > Thanks, > Bjoern Thanks! Greg Von Kuster ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
[galaxy-dev] set_environment_for_install problem, seeking for ideas
Hi Greg, I'm right now in implementing a setup_perl_environment and stumbled about a tricky problem (that is not only related to perl but also for ruby, python and R). The Problem: Lets assume a perl package (A) requires a xml parser written in C/C++ (Z). (Z) is a dependency that I can import but as far as I can see there is no way to call set_environment_for_install before setup_perl_environment, because setup_perl_environment defines an installation type. I would like to discuss that issue to get a few ideas. I can think about these solutions: - hackish solution: I can call install_environment.add_env_shell_file_paths( action_dict[ 'env_shell_file_paths' ] ) inside of the setup_*_environment path and remove it from action type afterwards - import all env.sh variables from every (package) definition. Regardless if set_environment_for_install is set or not. I must admit, I do not understand why set_environment_for_install is actually needed. I think we can assume that if I specify a I want the ENV vars sourced. Furthermore, that can solve an other issue: Namely, the need of ENV vars from a package definition in the same file. Lets imagine package P has dependency D and you want to download compile both in one tool_dependencies.xml file. You can either do it in one definition or you need to split them up in 2 tool_dependencies.xml files, rigth? Maybe we can just assume a strict order in a tool_dependencies.xml file, where every ENV vars are sourced for the following one? Does that make sense? Any other ideas? Thanks, Bjoern ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
