Update uberenv #584
Update uberenv #584
Conversation
|
LGTM |
| @@ -112,7 +126,7 @@ config: | |||
| # of Spack. For filesystems that don't support locking, you should set | |||
| # this to false and run one Spack at a time, but otherwise we recommend | |||
| # enabling locks. | |||
| locks: false | |||
| locks: true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I worry about this one being true, it has caused hangs in the past
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lot of change with lock management is Spack since.
I would suggest giving it a chance. I’ve had issues with this not being set to true.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It’s is true that this has "only" be tested by me locally and in CI.
So I understand that merging this is less straight-forward than merging CI only.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, lets keep them on
I guess you may actually need it for the CI workflows that have shared spack instances?
In the past locks weren't necessary and could be a barrier (hangs) for single install. But if we are going to use shared upstreams, we need them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
conduit/scripts/ci/build-on-lc.sh
Line 39 in 9d654df
Prefix still depends on the toolchain, I wanted to avoid concurrency at first, but it’s a potential optimization.
|
I am getting a source mirror up and running in #585, after this seems to be working, then I can try to help with updating uberenv. |
adrienbernede
force-pushed
the
feature/update-uberenv
branch
from
7a90e08
to
a5e808f
Compare
adrienbernede
force-pushed
the
feature/update-uberenv
branch
from
a5e808f
to
ab6831d
Compare
|
closing since #684 will accomplish this with uberenv as a submodule. |
It was decided that #517 should be split in two:
This PR updates Uberenv with a more recent version, fixing some bugs and allowing to get rid of "fake packages".