Proposal: Eliminate INST_CONDA=0 from install script
Hi all,
If anyone followed the e-mail thread on yt-users between me and Carla Bernhardt, they'd see that we had a lot of difficultly dealing with the INST_CONDA=0 option in the install script.
This option reverts the install script to "legacy" mode, installing yt and all of yt's dependencies from source rather than using miniconda and conda packages to bootstrap a python environment.
The problem is that the packages that get installed must be manually and laboriously updated. In practice this means packages are basically never updated. This also means the script installs relatively old versions of libraries (currently, matplotlib 1.5.1, numpy 1.11) simply because no one has taken the time to go through the list of libraries installed and update them. This means anyone who uses this option isn't benefiting from upstream bugfixes. It also means we risk bitrot.
In practice, I don't think I've recently heard of a situation where INST_CONDA=1 failed but INST_CONDA=0 did not.
The other option of course is for someone to step up and take responsibility for updating the INST_CONDA=0 section of the install script. I'd be happy to help out with that if anyone wants to volunteer.
However, without a maintainer, I think we are doing our users a disservice by leaving this option available.
If we *do* eliminate this option, we immediately reap the following benefits:
* The install script can be trimmed down by several hundred lines * We can simplify the install-script based install instructions in the docs * It becomes easier to test modifications to the install script because there are fewer permutations to test.
Please let me know what you think. I'd especially like to hear from people who are fans of INST_CONDA=0 or who recently used it with no issues.
-Nathan
Hi Nathan,
Unexpectedly, I find myself in agreement with you. I think we should ditch INST_CONDA=0, now that yt is able to be installed in a multitude of ways, and now that the dependency stack is also much easier to install.
This will also lighten the burden of maintenance that we put on ourselves when we add optional or explicit dependencies.
-Matt
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
If anyone followed the e-mail thread on yt-users between me and Carla Bernhardt, they'd see that we had a lot of difficultly dealing with the INST_CONDA=0 option in the install script.
This option reverts the install script to "legacy" mode, installing yt and all of yt's dependencies from source rather than using miniconda and conda packages to bootstrap a python environment.
The problem is that the packages that get installed must be manually and laboriously updated. In practice this means packages are basically never updated. This also means the script installs relatively old versions of libraries (currently, matplotlib 1.5.1, numpy 1.11) simply because no one has taken the time to go through the list of libraries installed and update them. This means anyone who uses this option isn't benefiting from upstream bugfixes. It also means we risk bitrot.
In practice, I don't think I've recently heard of a situation where INST_CONDA=1 failed but INST_CONDA=0 did not.
The other option of course is for someone to step up and take responsibility for updating the INST_CONDA=0 section of the install script. I'd be happy to help out with that if anyone wants to volunteer.
However, without a maintainer, I think we are doing our users a disservice by leaving this option available.
If we *do* eliminate this option, we immediately reap the following benefits:
- The install script can be trimmed down by several hundred lines
- We can simplify the install-script based install instructions in the docs
- It becomes easier to test modifications to the install script because
there are fewer permutations to test.
Please let me know what you think. I'd especially like to hear from people who are fans of INST_CONDA=0 or who recently used it with no issues.
-Nathan
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
this change sounds good to me.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Unexpectedly, I find myself in agreement with you. I think we should ditch INST_CONDA=0, now that yt is able to be installed in a multitude of ways, and now that the dependency stack is also much easier to install.
This will also lighten the burden of maintenance that we put on ourselves when we add optional or explicit dependencies.
-Matt
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
If anyone followed the e-mail thread on yt-users between me and Carla Bernhardt, they'd see that we had a lot of difficultly dealing with the INST_CONDA=0 option in the install script.
This option reverts the install script to "legacy" mode, installing yt
and
all of yt's dependencies from source rather than using miniconda and
conda
packages to bootstrap a python environment.
The problem is that the packages that get installed must be manually and laboriously updated. In practice this means packages are basically never updated. This also means the script installs relatively old versions of libraries (currently, matplotlib 1.5.1, numpy 1.11) simply because no one has taken the time to go through the list of libraries installed and
update
them. This means anyone who uses this option isn't benefiting from
upstream
bugfixes. It also means we risk bitrot.
In practice, I don't think I've recently heard of a situation where INST_CONDA=1 failed but INST_CONDA=0 did not.
The other option of course is for someone to step up and take
responsibility
for updating the INST_CONDA=0 section of the install script. I'd be
happy to
help out with that if anyone wants to volunteer.
However, without a maintainer, I think we are doing our users a
disservice
by leaving this option available.
If we *do* eliminate this option, we immediately reap the following benefits:
- The install script can be trimmed down by several hundred lines
- We can simplify the install-script based install instructions in the
docs
- It becomes easier to test modifications to the install script because
there are fewer permutations to test.
Please let me know what you think. I'd especially like to hear from
people
who are fans of INST_CONDA=0 or who recently used it with no issues.
-Nathan
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
+1
On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Michael Zingale michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu wrote:
this change sounds good to me.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Nathan,
Unexpectedly, I find myself in agreement with you. I think we should ditch INST_CONDA=0, now that yt is able to be installed in a multitude of ways, and now that the dependency stack is also much easier to install.
This will also lighten the burden of maintenance that we put on ourselves when we add optional or explicit dependencies.
-Matt
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
If anyone followed the e-mail thread on yt-users between me and Carla Bernhardt, they'd see that we had a lot of difficultly dealing with the INST_CONDA=0 option in the install script.
This option reverts the install script to "legacy" mode, installing yt and all of yt's dependencies from source rather than using miniconda and conda packages to bootstrap a python environment.
The problem is that the packages that get installed must be manually and laboriously updated. In practice this means packages are basically never updated. This also means the script installs relatively old versions of libraries (currently, matplotlib 1.5.1, numpy 1.11) simply because no one has taken the time to go through the list of libraries installed and update them. This means anyone who uses this option isn't benefiting from upstream bugfixes. It also means we risk bitrot.
In practice, I don't think I've recently heard of a situation where INST_CONDA=1 failed but INST_CONDA=0 did not.
The other option of course is for someone to step up and take responsibility for updating the INST_CONDA=0 section of the install script. I'd be happy to help out with that if anyone wants to volunteer.
However, without a maintainer, I think we are doing our users a disservice by leaving this option available.
If we *do* eliminate this option, we immediately reap the following benefits:
- The install script can be trimmed down by several hundred lines
- We can simplify the install-script based install instructions in the docs
- It becomes easier to test modifications to the install script because
there are fewer permutations to test.
Please let me know what you think. I'd especially like to hear from people who are fans of INST_CONDA=0 or who recently used it with no issues.
-Nathan
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 phone: 631-632-8225 e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale github: http://github.com/zingale http://github.com/zingale
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
+1
On 06/20/2017 12:11 PM, John ZuHone wrote:
+1
On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Michael Zingale <michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
this change sounds good to me.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nathan, Unexpectedly, I find myself in agreement with you. I think we should ditch INST_CONDA=0, now that yt is able to be installed in a multitude of ways, and now that the dependency stack is also much easier to install. This will also lighten the burden of maintenance that we put on ourselves when we add optional or explicit dependencies. -Matt On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com <mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi all, > > If anyone followed the e-mail thread on yt-users between me and Carla > Bernhardt, they'd see that we had a lot of difficultly dealing with the > INST_CONDA=0 option in the install script. > > This option reverts the install script to "legacy" mode, installing yt and > all of yt's dependencies from source rather than using miniconda and conda > packages to bootstrap a python environment. > > The problem is that the packages that get installed must be manually and > laboriously updated. In practice this means packages are basically never > updated. This also means the script installs relatively old versions of > libraries (currently, matplotlib 1.5.1, numpy 1.11) simply because no one > has taken the time to go through the list of libraries installed and update > them. This means anyone who uses this option isn't benefiting from upstream > bugfixes. It also means we risk bitrot. > > In practice, I don't think I've recently heard of a situation where > INST_CONDA=1 failed but INST_CONDA=0 did not. > > The other option of course is for someone to step up and take responsibility > for updating the INST_CONDA=0 section of the install script. I'd be happy to > help out with that if anyone wants to volunteer. > > However, without a maintainer, I think we are doing our users a disservice > by leaving this option available. > > If we *do* eliminate this option, we immediately reap the following > benefits: > > * The install script can be trimmed down by several hundred lines > * We can simplify the install-script based install instructions in the docs > * It becomes easier to test modifications to the install script because > there are fewer permutations to test. > > Please let me know what you think. I'd especially like to hear from people > who are fans of INST_CONDA=0 or who recently used it with no issues. > > -Nathan > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org <http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org> > _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org <http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org>-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 /phone/: 631-632-8225 /e-mail/: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu /web/: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale github: http://github.com/zingale
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
I'm glad everyone is OK with this :)
Here's a PR that implements this proposal:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/pull/1461
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Alex Lindsay alexlindsay239@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On 06/20/2017 12:11 PM, John ZuHone wrote:
+1
On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Michael Zingale <michael.zingale@stonybrook. edu> wrote:
this change sounds good to me.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Unexpectedly, I find myself in agreement with you. I think we should ditch INST_CONDA=0, now that yt is able to be installed in a multitude of ways, and now that the dependency stack is also much easier to install.
This will also lighten the burden of maintenance that we put on ourselves when we add optional or explicit dependencies.
-Matt
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
If anyone followed the e-mail thread on yt-users between me and Carla Bernhardt, they'd see that we had a lot of difficultly dealing with the INST_CONDA=0 option in the install script.
This option reverts the install script to "legacy" mode, installing yt
and
all of yt's dependencies from source rather than using miniconda and
conda
packages to bootstrap a python environment.
The problem is that the packages that get installed must be manually and laboriously updated. In practice this means packages are basically never updated. This also means the script installs relatively old versions of libraries (currently, matplotlib 1.5.1, numpy 1.11) simply because no
one
has taken the time to go through the list of libraries installed and
update
them. This means anyone who uses this option isn't benefiting from
upstream
bugfixes. It also means we risk bitrot.
In practice, I don't think I've recently heard of a situation where INST_CONDA=1 failed but INST_CONDA=0 did not.
The other option of course is for someone to step up and take
responsibility
for updating the INST_CONDA=0 section of the install script. I'd be
happy to
help out with that if anyone wants to volunteer.
However, without a maintainer, I think we are doing our users a
disservice
by leaving this option available.
If we *do* eliminate this option, we immediately reap the following benefits:
- The install script can be trimmed down by several hundred lines
- We can simplify the install-script based install instructions in the
docs
- It becomes easier to test modifications to the install script because
there are fewer permutations to test.
Please let me know what you think. I'd especially like to hear from
people
who are fans of INST_CONDA=0 or who recently used it with no issues.
-Nathan
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 <(631)%20632-8225> *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale github: http://github.com/zingale
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing listyt-dev@lists.spacepope.orghttp://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
participants (5)
-
Alex Lindsay -
John ZuHone -
Matthew Turk -
Michael Zingale -
Nathan Goldbaum