{numlib}[gfbf/2025b] FEniCS-Basix v0.10.0, FEniCS-DOLFINx v0.10.0, FEniCS-FFCx v0.10.0, ...#24393
{numlib}[gfbf/2025b] FEniCS-Basix v0.10.0, FEniCS-DOLFINx v0.10.0, FEniCS-FFCx v0.10.0, ...#24393sassy-crick wants to merge 14 commits intoeasybuilders:developfrom
Conversation
…foss-2025b.eb, FFCx-0.10.0-gfbf-2025b.eb, gmsh-4.14.1-foss-2025b.eb, UFL-2025.2.0-gfbf-2025b.eb
Updated software
|
|
Test report by @sassy-crick |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@sassy-crick: 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 3467673710 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@sassy-crick: 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 3468521854 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @sassy-crick |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Looks good to me now at first glance, but I'm not familiar at all with the packages 😄 That's something to the maintainers to decide... |
|
Test report by @Thyre |
|
Test report by @Thyre |
|
@sassy-crick We have a PR ready for FEniCS v0.9 (#23838). We are working on a PR for v0.10 on 2024b. We would like to have a latter version for 2025x. Would that be a problem? |
boegel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sassy-crick Can you look into the approach used in #23838, and adjust this PR accordingly?
@boegel Done. I hope I have it done as requested. There were a few |
|
Test report by @sassy-crick |
@jhale Apologies, I misread your comment as: you wanted to wait until the tests are done. |
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@sassy-crick: 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 4139156806 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Looks nearly there; I'm not sure the |
please keep the exact version in EB. removing |
Thanks for the clarification. I was waiting for that before I am tackling the next bits of software in that chain. |
gkaf89
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There few minor issues with dependencies and flags in DOLFIx. Explained in PR: sassy-crick#11
With these changes, it's good to go. Copy the changes if it's faster than merging.
…asyconfigs into 20251029100952_new_pr_Basix0100
|
@boegelbot please test @ jsc-zen3 |
|
@sassy-crick: 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 4328426481 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Test report by @sassy-crick |
That is odd. I have rebuild it before like this: However, when I build it like this: Edit: it seems to work with |
|
Test report by @sassy-crick |
|
I think there is more to it. whereas the module is called So for me it looks like the import is working correctly with and thus the build fails. What I don't get it why it is failing only when I am uploading the test reports, and apparently not with a previous version of EasyBuild, or when I just build only particular Python package. I find it odd that a module is imported with a different name then the name |
|
On a more general point, a Python package can export multiple importable modules. For historical reasons, we lost control at some point of various "ideal" package names on PyPi, I think Edit: |
|
This 'pip list' check is quiet annoying, but I believe you must change Maybe like that?: |
Usually I am doing |
I will stay clear of the politics around how to name Python modules, simply as I am not that much of a Python person. :-) |
The pip list check runs only when there is |
|
@sassy-crick the i agree this is a bit annoying, but this is temporary: it fixes wrong names that have been used in the past. the solution provided by @pavelToman using we'll soon add a warning for this, so you can see the issue before opening a PR. (btw the |
(created using
eb --new-pr)Requires:
Based on the work from PR #22700 and #22422
I would suggest once this PR is merged, to apply the changes to the original PRs too.