CI Linux incremental: make reconfigure after uninstalling packages
#36829
Conversation
This file contains 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
mkoeppe
changed the title
make reconfigure after uninstalling packages
added 4 commits
December 18, 2023 16:51
…es, run 'make reconfigure'
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
ci_linux_incremental_reconfigure
branch
from
f0d0c72 to
770c269
Compare
kwankyu
reviewed
Jan 2, 2024
|
Otherwise lgtm. |
|
Thank you! |
|
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit ce89bf6; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
kwankyu
reviewed
Jan 3, 2024
vbraun
pushed a commit
to vbraun/sage
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 5, 2024
…stalling packages
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->
As observed in
sagemath#36792 (comment), the
"CI Linux incremental" workflow, which is run when package scripts are
updated, is not helpful when testing new or modified `spkg-configure.m4`
scripts when the SPKG has been installed:
Although we uninstall packages with changed spkg-configure.m4 scripts
already, a re-run of configure is not (always?) triggered.
So here we invoke it explicitly, using a new makefile target `make
reconfigure`.
(This new target also simplifies instructions issued by the system
package advice facility.)
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->
### 📝 Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->
- [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
- [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [ ] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
### ⌛ Dependencies
<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
URL: sagemath#36829
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe
vbraun
pushed a commit
to vbraun/sage
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2024
…atching set of new versions
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->
Resolves sagemath#34359.
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->
### 📝 Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->
- [ ] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
- [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [ ] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
### ⌛ Dependencies
- Depends on sagemath#36829 (to help with testing)
<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
URL: sagemath#36997
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s):
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
As observed in #36792 (comment), the "CI Linux incremental" workflow, which is run when package scripts are updated, is not helpful when testing new or modified
spkg-configure.m4scripts when the SPKG has been installed:Although we uninstall packages with changed spkg-configure.m4 scripts already, a re-run of configure is not (always?) triggered.
So here we invoke it explicitly, using a new makefile target
make reconfigure.(This new target also simplifies instructions issued by the system package advice facility.)
📝 Checklist
⌛ Dependencies