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

recipe repo issues: conflicting cray-mpich package #117

Open
j-ogas opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

recipe repo issues: conflicting cray-mpich package #117

j-ogas opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@j-ogas
Copy link

j-ogas commented Jun 28, 2023

stack-config will error when the target recipe has a repo with /packages/cray-mpich. This appears to be because the alps repo is always added, regardless of the -r argument?

@j-ogas
Copy link
Author

j-ogas commented Jun 28, 2023

Also, it appears that one cannot get around this issue by adding a repo.yaml that defines different a namespace, e.g., mysweetrepo, with the hopes of specifying which cray-mpich to use, e.g., alps.cray-mpich vs. mysweetrepo.cray-mpich.

Found 'repo.yaml' file in `myrecipe/repo`
'repo.yaml' is ignored, packages are added to the 'alps' repo

@bcumming
Copy link
Member

Hello @j-ogas.
Sorry for the slow reply, I missed this issue.

To summarise, you are trying to provide your own packages/cray-mpich because the default one provided by Stackinator refers to the CSCS artifactory?

Thinking about this, we could move the alps repo out of stackinator, and have the default repo be provided in the system configuration. That way it is packaged with the system-specific configuration?

@j-ogas
Copy link
Author

j-ogas commented Jul 17, 2023

To summarise, you are trying to provide your own packages/cray-mpich because the default one provided by Stackinator refers to the CSCS artifactory?

Precisely. We need to fetch our source tarballs from our internal mirror.

Thinking about this, we could move the alps repo out of stackinator, and have the default repo be provided in the system configuration. That way it is packaged with the system-specific configuration?

That sounds reasonable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants