Skip to content

Let ingest_tarball.sh support custom installation prefixes - #278

Closed
Neves-P wants to merge 2 commits into
EESSI:mainfrom
Neves-P:fork/main
Closed

Neves-P wants to merge 2 commits into
EESSI:mainfrom
Neves-P:fork/main

Conversation

@Neves-P

@Neves-P Neves-P commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

With this PR we are in the last (?) steps to generalize support for custom installation prefixes, following from EESSI/software-layer-scripts#239 and EESSI/software-layer-scripts#295

This is still a draft, as the verions subpath argument must still be obtained from the tarball metadata. This is currently not encoded anywhere we can easily gather at the ingestion stage.

  • Added optional third argument for the repository-relative versions subpath:
    ingest-tarball.sh <repository> <tarball> [versions subpath]
  • Defaults to versions, preserving standard repository behavior.
  • Removed the dev.eessi.io-specific filename inference.
  • Added validation preventing absolute paths and ./.. path components.
  • Ensured Lmod searches the custom subpath in the target repository while still using software.eessi.io/versions when falling back.

@boegel

boegel commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Neves-P Can you clarify why you're closing this?

@Neves-P
Neves-P restored the fork/main branch September 3, 2026 14:42
@Neves-P Neves-P reopened this Sep 3, 2026
@Neves-P

Neves-P commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@boegel sorry about that! That was unintentional, I accidentally deleted the wrong branch on my fork!

@Neves-P

Neves-P commented Sep 3, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I don't get why scripts/automatic-cvmfs-named-snapshot/automatic-cvmfs-named-snapshot.sh is in the list of changed files because it isn't in any of the commits... 🤔

@Neves-P

Neves-P commented Sep 14, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Now I am indeed closing this one in favor of #282. Both approaches work and are backwards compatible with the existing workflow, so that merging them won't break anything. @bedroge's approach, however, already accommodates custom installation prefixes without requiring that the installation subdir variable is passed all the way through the software layer, and bot build and ingestion code.

Let's go with #282 instead, otherwise we delay this for longer. However, the aim of leveraging a custom installation prefix for dev.eessi.io is still good and we need to stop treating dev.eessi.io as a special case whenever it can actually fit in the normal workflow. Otherwise we risk keeping two diverging build and ingestion workflows for a long time which will only become more of a hassle to maintain. For that, see -> #284

@Neves-P Neves-P closed this Sep 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants