Improve support for building on top of EESSI as a site, leveraging upstream software-layer-scripts#239
Draft
casparvl wants to merge 37 commits into
Draft
Improve support for building on top of EESSI as a site, leveraging upstream software-layer-scripts#239casparvl wants to merge 37 commits into
casparvl wants to merge 37 commits into
Conversation
… EESSI_SITE_SOFTWARE_PATH_PREFIX
…d issues with the overlay filesystem not being able to write when doing mkdir calls
…SI env, as the EESSI_CVMFS_REPO doesn't seem to be set any earlier
…gated into the compat layer environment
…is is the custom variable we introduced for the sole purpose of forcing site installs for the build scripts. We introduced a separate var because we don't want to pick up on a EESSI_SITE_INSTALL that may or may be not be set in the general system environment
…hy they are not respected
… to set the EESSI_SITE_SOFTWARE_PATH correctly
…kipped for site installations. Also, make sure that parts that should be installed in /cvmfs/software.eessi.io for site installations (such as the cuda libraries) are actually installed there - and not in the EESSI_SITE_SOFTWARE_PREFIX
…e installs that define EESSI_SITE_SOFTWARE_PREFIX
…e.eessi.io or dev.eessi.io
…o that when we're doing site builds, we are _also_ mounting software.eessi.io _and_ we are using the software.eessi.io compatibility layer
…fficient to set the override dir
added 2 commits
May 27, 2026 11:23
… of EESSI_VERSION_OVERRIDE - that's sufficient
ocaisa
reviewed
May 27, 2026
| # NOTE 3, we have to set a default for EASYBUILD_INSTALLPATH here in cases the | ||
| # EESSI-extend module itself needs to be installed. | ||
|
|
||
| # Should we introduce an if-clause here for site installs? Do we want site installs to be able to install their own EESSI-extend modules? |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would be a can of worms, as their local one takes precedence
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They can always have a custom EESSI-extend, but shadowing doesn't feel like a good approach
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I felt the same, which is why I didn't enable that for site installs right now.
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
2 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.
This work was done mostly in preparation for the webinar on July 1st 2026 about building on top of EESSI. The goal here is to make the scripts in
software-layer-scriptssufficiently configurable so that sites can use them 'as is' in order to build on top of EESSI, in a way that is as similar as EESSI as possible.Note that
dev.eessi.iopractically does this, and that's why a lot of the conditional sections apply to both site builds anddev.eessi.iobuilds. Eventually, we should make sure thatdev.eessi.ioessentially just does a 'site build' on top of EESSI (#236). This PR doesn't do that yet, to not introduce more complexity in a single PR