{lang}[iimkl/2023b] SciPy-bundle v2023.12#20262
{lang}[iimkl/2023b] SciPy-bundle v2023.12#20262Crivella merged 9 commits intoeasybuilders:developfrom
Conversation
…scipy-1.11.4_disable-test_branch_cut.patch, numpy-1.26.2_fix_selected_kind_for_ifort.patch
| # order is important! | ||
| exts_list = [ | ||
| ('numpy', '1.26.2', { | ||
| 'easyblock': 'PythonPackage', # pip install builds numpy v1.26.x via spin/meson/ninja |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feature isn't really documented
Am I allowed to use it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not disallowed, though this would mean we e.g. aren't running test step (and all the other good stuff that presumably is done in that easyblock, like picking up fft etc.)
I would like to input from one of the authors of the numpy easyblock. I only recognize @boegel names there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Specifying a custom easyblock for a particular extension like this is fine in general, but bypassing the custom easyblock for numpy specifically is a bit of a "red flag" (strongly worded).
It seems like that may point to a fix being needed in the numpy easyblock instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like that may point to a fix being needed in the numpy easyblock instead?
Yes, that's what I thought first too. One might say that the numpy easyblock need to evolve along with the changes in numpy's build system (v1.26.0).
Similarly to what happened to the SciPy easyblock (pr 2862), when there were changes in SciPy's build system (v1.9).
But I'm in doubt, because the new build system is (advertised as) simpler, then why would we making our easyblock more complex? If the generic pythonpackage works better than the bespoke numpy block, we have an opportunity to be leaner.
I want to do what happened with SciPy block, but I want it to be a oneliner. One test that makes it revert to the generic case, say if LooseVersion(self.version) >= LooseVersion('1.26'). I don't like the idea of adding many if self.use_meson statements in the block, doubling it.
Am I missing something? Those tests that @Micket mentioned? Please let me know what you think.
|
I've added SciPy-bundle-2023.12-gfbf-2023b.eb to complete the pair (they both have the numpy extension using the spin/meson/ninja build via pip install) I suppose a pair of version 2023.11 could be completed by adding the iimkl build, but it seems tedious to do and I think it might also not desired... |
|
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to introduce another For @Louwrensth Do you recall what kind of trouble you ran into with |
Good call. I don't recall, but I found a stash. I'll:
|
f402080 to
59d13d8
Compare
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
I had to install |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@Louwrensth: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 2921970214 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
attempt to fix build error: npy_cdouble definition is not compatible with C99 complex definition !
Updated software
|
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@Louwrensth: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 2974809137 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
@boegel: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 3352800936 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Test report by @verdurin |
|
Test report by @Crivella |
|
Comparison between SciPy-bundle/2023.11-gfbf-2023b
SciPy-bundle/2023.12-iimkl-2023b
I would say neither the |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@Crivella: Request for testing this PR well received on jsczen3l1.int.jsc-zen3.fz-juelich.de PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 3660665273 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @Crivella |
|
Also from running foss/2023b
intel/2023b
intel/2025b
I guess we might have to see if it is possible also to pick up the LAPACK correctly. EDIT: Indeed even the |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Test report by @boegel |
|
Going in, thanks @Louwrensth! |
| easyblock = 'PythonBundle' | ||
|
|
||
| name = 'SciPy-bundle' | ||
| version = '2023.12' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, this version is being changed to 2023.11 in #24931, to align it with SciPy-bundle-2023.11-gfbf-2023b.eb...
(created using
eb --new-pr)