remove bare Python easyconfig using GCCcore/6.4.0 toolchain + easyconfigs that require it#5075
Merged
wpoely86 merged 1 commit intoeasybuilders:developfrom Aug 30, 2017
Merged
Conversation
…figs that require it
Member
Author
|
@JackPerdue Please let us know if you're OK with this. |
Contributor
|
I totally approve of backing out any Python packages targeted for 2017b until we figure out what we want to do. |
wpoely86
approved these changes
Aug 30, 2017
Closed
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Following the discussion in #4962 and #5072, I propose we remove the bare Python easyconfig built with
GCCcore/6.4.0(merged in #4962) and the handful of easyconfigs that require it (merged in #4915, #4916, #4917, #4966).We should take a step back and figure out a long-term sustainable approach to having a
Pythoninstallation atGCCcore, preferably with feedback from @damianam who has some experience with this too at JSC...