@boegelbot please test @ generoso

@Micket: I noticed your comment, but I only dance when @bartoldeman or @boegel or @casparvl or @migueldiascosta or @smoors or @verdurin tells me (for now), I'm sorry...

Test report by @lexming
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node101.hydra.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/e6aa010890e3d56d34faf8a829d436bc for a full test report.

Test report by @lexming
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node379.hydra.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6148 CPU @ 2.40GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/551ff5f432a42d58a98a40887d787901 for a full test report.

Seems like my filename pattern failed in this case.. in fact, i'm not sure what the filename ought to be

@Micket this is the URL for v3.31.1: https://www.sqlite.org/2020/sqlite-autoconf-3310100.tar.gz
So it is more complicated than a simple join, each subversion uses 2 digits in the name of the tarball.

@Micket something like this would do the version string conversion

'{:d}{:02d}{:02d}00'.format(*[int(v) for v in '%(version)s'.split('.')])

@lexming @boegel downvoted my suggested

local_filename_version = '{0}{1:>02}{2:>02}{3:>02}'.format(*(version.split('.')+ [0]))

(which would also handle the case of a sub-patch release they sometimes have for the last 2 digits)

So, hardcoded string + sanity check it is

Test report by @lexming
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node381.hydra.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6148 CPU @ 2.40GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/12e89637accb0ea41c32861ab72cccd0 for a full test report.

Test report by @lexming
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node101.hydra.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/b539c7d48db821a1b29a6583e743b234 for a full test report.

Totally forgot that the checksum is (of course) wrong

@boegelbot please test @ generoso

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node2645.swalot.os - Linux centos linux 7.8.2003, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v3 @ 2.60GHz (haswell), Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/3328edfa50a7cf1d8eb9486d13fe9704 for a full test report.

@boegel: Request for testing this PR well received on generoso

PR test command 'EB_PR=11483 EB_ARGS= /apps/slurm/default/bin/sbatch --job-name test_PR_11483 ~/boegelbot/eb_from_pr_upload_generoso.sh' executed!

• exit code: 0
• output:

Submitted batch job 8066

Test results coming soon (I hope)...

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3109.skitty.os - Linux centos linux 7.8.2003, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz, Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/085da2e7b75cae8dc3c0b149e7ad87b9 for a full test report.

Test report by @boegelbot
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
generoso-x-3 - Linux centos linux 8.2.2004, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2667 v3 @ 3.20GHz (haswell), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/e0b035c0b35b439b704945f9ba461fec for a full test report.

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
node3502.doduo.os - Linux RHEL 8.2, x86_64, AMD EPYC 7302P 16-Core Processor (zen2), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/9692a06d0096f457e149795a77780430 for a full test report.

@Micket Do you think it's worth it to backport the sanity check command to older SQLite easyconfigs?

@boegel My vote is no, not worth it