Automatic reply from Jenkins: Can I test this?

Jenkins: ok to test

@hajgato: nice job! I was looking into this too, but didn't get to making a PR for it yet, you beat me to it. ;-)

The netloc isn't really necessary, since it can't be used in the toolchain (you can't enhance OpenMPI with netloc yet like you can with hwloc), but it doesn't hurt to have it in here.

For pull requests that add a new toolchain, we usually ask to include an easyconfig file that uses that toolchain, to make sure that the toolchain itself is tested.
Care to include one (e.g. HPL, since that uses most of the toolchain components (compiler, mpi, BLAS/LAPACK, ...))?

I'll issue a PR for the definition of the foss and intel common toolchains. We briefly discussed these during the 6th EasyBuild hackathon in Vienna, and there seemed to be an agreement that including these as standard/common toolchains in EasyBuild makes a lot of sense community-wise.

So, I'd like to hear from the others whether they can agree with the definition of this foss/2014b toolchain, which includes:

• GCC v4.8.3
• OpenMPI v1.8.1 (+ hwloc v1.9 (+ numactl v2.0.9))
• OpenBLAS 0.2.9
• LAPACK 3.5.0
• FFTW 3.3.4
• ScaLAPACK 2.0.2

@stdweird/@JensTimmerman, @georgets/@tloizou, @fgeorgatos, @pescobar, @pforai/@azet, @georg-rath/@ebirn, @hpcleuven/@gjbex, @geimer, @arungolfy: We discussed this already and there didn't seem to be any remarks w.r.t. versions/components, but getting a +1 on this by most of you would be nice...

Framework support for this in contributed in easybuilders/easybuild-framework#956 by @gjbex

boegel: You mean FFTW 3.3.4 and not 3.5.0, right?

@hajgato: yes, sorry, copy-paste error, I corrected it in my earlier comment

s/foss/libre/g

+1
On 23 Jun 2014 08:51, "Aaron Zauner" [email protected] wrote:

s/foss/libre/g

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#935 (comment)
.

+1

W.r.t. foss vs libre: we've been over this briefly during the hackathon. We can discuss this endlessly, but in the end it's just a toolchain name that nobody will know what it stands for...

Especially for the open-source common toolchain being contributed here, the name is even less important (since if you have Intel compilers available, you'll typically be installed software with that instead).

I consider foss to be superior to libre, since it's imho better to have a meaningless name than foss than a confusing name like libre. Think about installing commercial software (e.g. Gaussian, VASP) under a module name that contains libre (since it was built with that toolchain)...

So, let's just stick to foss, since there's no good name for an open-source toolchain anyway. For the intel toolchain, there's clearly no discussion.

In the end, we will hopefully end up with using a hierarchical module naming scheme, which can hide toolchains from users all together (keep an eye on the upcoming EasyBuild v1.14 w.r.t. that, we made excellent progress on that during the last hackathon).

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 11 out of 11
Linux SL 6.5, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 0 @ 2.60GHz, Python 2.6.6
See https://gist.github.com/706d6514f9bdd966856f for a full test report.

Tested this on top of easybuilders/easybuild-framework#956, so good to go as soon as that one is merged in.
I'm looking into the intel/2014b toolchain too, PR coming very soon...

Jenkins: test this please

looking good to me.