New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add geneva generator #4405
add geneva generator #4405
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @mkirsano (Mikhail Kirsanov) for branch IB/CMSSW_10_3_X/gcc700. @cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @gudrutis, @mrodozov can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
geneva.spec
Outdated
%prep | ||
%setup -q -n %{n}-%{realversion} | ||
|
||
mkdir build |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mkirsano , can you please
- move the
%build
statement just above this line - create build directory outside of the source tree e.g something like https://github.com/cms-sw/cmsdist/blob/IB/CMSSW_10_3_X/gcc700/root.spec#L35 . You also need to update cmake to use
../%{n}-%{realversion}
geneva.spec
Outdated
### RPM external geneva 1.0-RC3 | ||
Source: git+https://stash.desy.de/scm/geneva/geneva-public.git?obj=master/%{realversion}&export=%{n}-%{realversion}&output=/%{n}-%{realversion}-%{tag}.tgz | ||
|
||
BuildRequires: cmake |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
add dependency on gmake
here.
geneva.spec
Outdated
|
||
%build | ||
cd build | ||
make LHAPDF_DATA_PATH=${LHAPDF_ROOT}/share/LHAPDF |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can this be build in parallel if yes then please add %{makeprocesses}
Comparison job queued. |
Pull request #4405 was updated. |
@smuzaffar, I did not understand about gamke, there is no such tool |
Pull request #4405 was updated. |
oops sorry typo, it is |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
Pull request #4405 was updated. |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
+externals |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next IB/CMSSW_10_4_X/gcc700 IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
"It is just that this package will not be available for python3. " that is to say the lifetime make be only though the 10_4_X cycle in production.. |
@davidlange6 @smuzaffar this is indeed a problem. This generator is under discussion since several years, and interesting from the physics point of view for precision studies. But if it is bound to python2 I agree we merge it now to kick it out in a few month: does it make sense? @mkirsano @efeyazgan @qliphy @alberto-sanchez did you contact the authors about this technical but important issue for the medium-long term maintainability? |
On Oct 12, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
@davidlange6 @smuzaffar this is indeed a problem. This generator is under discussion since several years, and interesting from the physics point of view for precision studies. But if it is bound to python2 I agree we merge it now to kick it out in a few month: does it make sense?
if its a matter of user analysis (eg, not cmsRun level) then I guess it will continue to function a while longer (unless a technical hurdle prevents that)
…
@mkirsano @efeyazgan @qliphy @alberto-sanchez did you contact the authors about this technical but important issue for the medium-long term maintainability?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
@davidlange6 well, I assume people will want to have official productions with it, with the idea of carrying it forward as we do for other tools (e.g. madgraph, powheg, sherpa...) So I am afraid it will not just be a Run2 standalone effort restricted to 10_4_X, at least this is not what I would expect |
via the python api?
… On Oct 12, 2018, at 11:12 AM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
@davidlange6 well, I assume people will want to have official productions with it, with the idea of carrying it forward as we do for other tools (e.g. madgraph, powheg, sherpa...) So I am afraid it will not just be a Run2 standalone effort restricted to 10_4_X, at least this is not what I would expect
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
Expected usage of this is similar to madgraph, with an external executable called from ExternalLHEProducer or similar producing an LHE file, which is then showered by pythia within CMSSW, so as long as python2 is available within the environment it should be ok. |
Good - so lets get the answer about python 3 support (as end of life of python 2 is not so far away) and if not crazy merge this and move on..
… On Oct 12, 2018, at 11:34 AM, Josh Bendavid ***@***.***> wrote:
Expected usage of this is similar to madgraph, with an external executable called from ExternalLHEProducer or similar producing an LHE file, which is then showered by pythia within CMSSW, so as long as python2 is available within the environment it should be ok.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
The authors said that they don't have concrete plans about python 3 support, but if it is needed for CMS, thay can put some priority in this and work on it. So far they were responsive and helpful. In RC3 they solved all problems reported about RC2. |
python 2 end of life is in 14 months. Supporting python 3 on that timescale would suit the current plan for CMS given what has been said about its usage and our expectation that we can support python2 and python3 together
… On Oct 12, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Mikhail Kirsanov ***@***.***> wrote:
The authors said that they don't have concrete plans about python 3 support, but if it is needed for CMS, thay can put some priority in this and work on it. So far they were responsive and helpful. In RC3 they solved all problems reported about RC2.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
@mkirsano @alberto-sanchez @efeyazgan @qliphy there was any clarification about the timescale for a python3 update of the existing code? The questions not "whether" we need it but "when" it might become available |
I informed the authors that we need the compatibility with python 3 as soon as possible, in any case it should be compatible early next year. The answer is: We'll look into migrating to python 3 and prioritize it accordingly. |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
No description provided.