Skip to content
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

Get run_exports the slow way #3603

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

duncanmmacleod
Copy link
Contributor

channeldata.json only contains one run_exports entry for each version of each package; some packages (looking at you fftw) have multiple builds of the same version with different run_exports. This PR naively undoes some recent work to force recipe rendering to use the slow, but robust method of accessing run_exports.

I'm not sure if this PR is well-motivated, or if there is a better solution to the run_exports problem, so I haven't added news entries, but will do if this change is acceptable.

`channeldata.json` only contains one `run_exports` entry for each package; some packages (looking at you `fftw`) have multiple builds with different `run_exports`, so we need to use the slow, robust method of accessing `run_exports` during recipe rendering
@msarahan
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think that's the right solution. We should fix channeldata.json - it sounds like it is broken. Can you add a test with your fftw package and your desired output from channeldata.json?

@msarahan
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is fixed in #3611 - closing. I think we may need the build string differentiator as discussed on gitter, though.

@msarahan msarahan closed this Jul 18, 2019
@jjhelmus
Copy link
Contributor

Variants are not fixed by #3611

@github-actions
Copy link

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this pull request to remain open please:

  1. Rebase and verify the changes still work
  2. Leave a comment with the current status

NOTE: If this pull request was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale [bot] marked as stale due to inactivity label Jul 27, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this pull request to remain open please:

  1. Rebase and verify the changes still work
  2. Leave a comment with the current status

NOTE: If this pull request was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!

@jezdez
Copy link
Member

jezdez commented Jul 27, 2023

Not stale

@github-actions github-actions bot added stale::recovered [bot] recovered after being marked as stale and removed stale [bot] marked as stale due to inactivity labels Jul 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
stale::recovered [bot] recovered after being marked as stale
Projects
Status: 🆕 New
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants