-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
{2023.06}[2023a] bcgTree 1.2.1 #1032
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
{2023.06}[2023a] bcgTree 1.2.1 #1032
Conversation
Instance
|
Instance
|
Instance
|
Instance
|
Instance
|
bot: build repo:eessi.io-2023.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws arch:aarch64/neoverse_v1 |
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
New job on instance
|
The sanity check of MUSCLE is failing:
|
The release noted of MUSCLE suggest that they support Aarch64, See https://github.com/rcedgar/muscle/releases/tag/v5.1. But the failure suggests otherwise. I found this in their
|
A LLM says I should try this and it does not seem crazy. (Asked him what is wrong with this line LLM:
|
Tested this pr, easybuilders/easybuild-easyconfigs#22780, on the neoverse_v1 node and than it completed the 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.
Pick-up MUSLE with patch for Aarch64
bot: build repo:eessi.io-2023.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws arch:aarch64/neoverse_v1 |
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
Updates by the bot instance
|
New job on instance
|
Ok got through 2 out of the 4 builds with the patch to MUSCLE
|
RAxML failed
|
Co-authored-by: Bob Dröge <[email protected]>
Label |
Label |
1 similar comment
Label |
Label |
Hmm, the missing installation CI is failing for the Arm targets because edit: I guess we need to do something similar as we do for LAMMPS (https://github.com/EESSI/software-layer/blob/2023.06-software.eessi.io/eb_hooks.py#L376) and CP2K (https://github.com/EESSI/software-layer/blob/2023.06-software.eessi.io/eb_hooks.py#L394), because the checks are running on x86_64? Or maybe we could use a native Arm runner for the Arm targets, but I'm not sure how easy it is to split the CI. |
Seems like it boils down to using a different That doesn't seem very difficult to do, see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#example-using-a-multi-dimension-matrix I'll take a quick stab at it, this PR is a good excuse to look into that (and it's a good test case). |
@bedroge Turns out it's not that difficult, see: |
synced with updated |
PR merged! Moved |
PR merged! Moved |
PR merged! Moved |
PR merged! Moved |
PR merged! Moved |
PR merged! Moved |
4 out of 39 required modules missing: