mpich2.module

[chan@…]

The offending file is src/packaging/envmods/mpich2.module.in.
mpich2.module shouldn't be installed $datadir in its current form,
e.g. commenting out the install line in the envmods/Makefile.sm
for 1.1 release.

A.Chan

----- "Anthony Chan" <chan@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Actually prepended PATH is wrong, @datadir@ is ${prefix}/share,
> since prefix is not defined in the module, the file is
> totally useless.
>
> ----- chan@mcs.anl.gov wrote:
>
> > I notice in mpcih2-1.1rc1's install dir, $datadir, has a file
> > called mpich2.module which has the following line.
> >
> > *********************************
> > #%Module 1.0
> > #
> > #  MPICH2 module for use with 'environment-modules' package:
> > #
> > prepend-path            PATH            @datadir@/bin
> > *********************************
> >
> > 1st, the file is incomplete.
> >      It needs at least to update MANPATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> >      if it is a shared library build.
> >
> > 2nd, I think the file should be in $sysconfdir instead
> >      of $datadir since .module file is a configuration
> >      file.
> >
> > 3rd, this module file format seems like one particular favor of
> > modulefiles,
> >      should there some tests in configure to check if user
> environment
> >      has "module" command before even configure/build the .module
> file
> > ?
> >      I have been using cmod on my laptop for years, it is different
> > from
> >      Tcl/tk based modulefiles....
> >
> > 4th, should the path to the module files be appended with version of
> >      mpich2 or even compiler used.... ?
> >
> > A.Chan

[anonymous]

This message has 0 attachment(s)

[balaji]

In the current form, it should still work for static builds, isn't it? So, what's the problem in building it without commenting it out in Makefile.sm? This is needed by the folks who create binary packages for MPICH2.

[Anthony Chan]

Unless something has changed, the installed mpich2.module is incorrect.
I listed all the problems that i saw in the original bug report.

A.Chan
----- "mpich2" <mpich2-maint@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> ------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  chan@mcs.anl.gov  |        Owner:
>      Type:  bug               |       Status:  new
>  Priority:  major             |    Milestone:
> Component:  mpich2            |   Resolution:
>  Keywords:                    |
> ------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
>
>
> Comment (by balaji):
>
>  In the current form, it should still work for static builds, isn't
> it? So,
>  what's the problem in building it without commenting it out in
>  Makefile.sm? This is needed by the folks who create binary packages
> for
>  MPICH2.
>
> --
> Ticket URL:
> <https://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/mpich2/ticket/615#comment:2>

[thakur]

The Fedora guys gave us this file to include in MPICH2. They use it for building binaries. Seems to work for them.

[chan]

This file can't be used. I have been using "module" even now. I don't understand how it can be used to build binaries ? Here is the file:

#%Module 1.0 # # MPICH2 module for use with 'environment-modules' package: # prepend-path PATH ${prefix}/share/bin

Since prefix is not defined, when you do "module add mpich2", only /share/bin is prepended to PATH. The file can't be useful! Which fedora guy gives us this file, I would like to talk to him ? The file location violates GNU coding standard... Given the state of this file, I would like to remove the file for 1.1.1 if no one objects.

A.Chan

[Rajeev Thakur]

If you know how to fix it, please go ahead.

[Anthony Chan]

I know how to fix mpich2.module to make it useful
but I just not sure what src/packaging/envmods is going
to work with "module" that ships on fedora. This
is software management that mpich2 have not been
getting involved in.  But if we do want in software
management space, we should at least understand the
environment of how the envmods is going to be used
(at least before fixing it, if not, we should delete
it).  People give us junk, we don't just include junk
in our distrution, right ? Do you know the email address
of the guy that gives us this file ?

A.Chan

[chan]

Fixed mpich2.module.in so that it is self-contained and usable by modules. But the location of the installed module file still needs to be known to modules, and the filename/pathname needs to have a reference to mpich2 version ID. (that means modules user will need to copy the module file in build directory to somewhere searched by modules) Since these 2 issues which are defined by the implementation of the modules distributed with Fedora and are unknown to any of us, so the temporary solution is not to install the module file (that is consistent with other files in src/packaging) until Deji has answers to these questions. BTW, Deji has confirmed that the module file is not needed to package mpich2 for fedora, it is there for the convenience of the packagers. Deji said he did not use the modules himself, but he said other downstream packagers have proposed all MPI implementations should use modules instead of the default "alternatives" system. I will resolve this for now until I heard more from him.