Fix self-check for hdf5@1.10.0-patch1 #1099
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
See #1025. |
|
@eschnett @adamjstewart: which one do you want me to merge? |
|
Please merge #1099. |
|
@adamjstewart: any objections? |
|
Nope. Sounds good to me |
olupton
pushed a commit
to olupton/spack
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 7, 2022
Bump workflow Bump py-morphology-repair-workflow and update related packages. Keep only the latest py-morphio/morphio 3.1.1.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The self-check code that was written to validate HDF5 post-installation didn't predict that the Spack versions might someday contain patches. Spack expects the HDF5 version to be reported as "1.10.0-patch1" but HDF5 reports its version as "1.10.0". This corrects that by only giving the first 3 digits.
Of course, there are dozens of ways to strip "-patch1" from the end of the version number. If you think there's a safer/more future proof way of doing it, let me know.
@eschnett: You wrote
check_install. Does this change look good to you?