Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#46929 closed defect (invalid)
octopus: add mpi.enforce_variant fftw-3
| Reported by: | tenomoto (Takeshi Enomoto) | Owned by: | dstrubbe (David Strubbe) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 2.3.3 |
| Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | dstrubbe (David Strubbe) |
| Port: | octopus |
Description
The build of octopus on buildbots failed because vanilla fftw-3 are built but octopus requires fftw-3 with a fortran variant, which can be forced with
mpi.enforce_variant fftw-3
mpi.enforce_variant are used a few places in Portfile. Why not add another?
Attachments (1)
Change History (6)
Changed 9 years ago by tenomoto (Takeshi Enomoto)
| Attachment: | patch-Portfile.diff added |
|---|
comment:1 follow-up: 2 Changed 9 years ago by dstrubbe (David Strubbe)
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by seanfarley (Sean Farley)
Replying to dstrubbe@…:
The problem is, that is not a default variant, and so the buildbot does not have fftw-3 installed with a Fortran variant when building octopus. mpi.enforce_variant would not do this either.
Yes, this is because we can't depend on a variant in MacPorts.
Moreover, it is too restrictive, in that we do not need the same Fortran compiler as octopus, just some Fortran variant. Ideas on how to fix this situation are certainly welcome.
This is something @dstrubbe has brought up before but I am very much against it. MacPorts has trouble enough as it is to enforce mpi and other compiler libraries, much less depending on variants (which is impossible currently). Ensuring that we use the same fortran compiler is the only way to make ports *reliable* and *reproducible*. Furthermore, @dstrubbe has yet to bring up a valid reason for needing a different fortran compiler. In the past, I have wanted something similar (gfortran as a standalone port) but it is damn near impossible to have this without so much work. It is easier and safer to just ensure the same compilers here.
comment:3 follow-up: 4 Changed 9 years ago by tenomoto (Takeshi Enomoto)
How about creating fftw-3-fortran subport?
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by seanfarley (Sean Farley)
Replying to takeshi@…:
How about creating fftw-3-fortran subport?
Where would it end? atlas-fortran? fftw-3-fortran-mpich? petsc-fortran? petsc-fortran-mpich? py-numpy-atlas-fortran? dolfin-fortran?
The MacPorts system just isn't designed for fortran nor mpi.
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by dstrubbe (David Strubbe)
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Thanks for your comments. I think we are in agreement that the proposal would not solve the problem, so I am closing this ticket.
Hello Takeshi,
This would not solve the problem unfortunately. You can see in the log that we are already checking whether fftw-3 has a Fortran variant:
The problem is, that is not a default variant, and so the buildbot does not have fftw-3 installed with a Fortran variant when building octopus. mpi.enforce_variant would not do this either. Moreover, it is too restrictive, in that we do not need the same Fortran compiler as octopus, just some Fortran variant. Ideas on how to fix this situation are certainly welcome.