-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
another apptainer workaround [13_2_X] #45710
another apptainer workaround [13_2_X] #45710
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 for CMSSW_13_2_X. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @fwyzard, @makortel can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here
|
cms-bot internal usage |
test parameters |
please test |
Thanks @kpedro88. I see we'd need the backport also in
Although we could discuss if some of these earlier release cycles, e.g. those below, could be dropped
Assuming 13_2_X and 13_1_X release cycles would still need to be kept, maybe we could consider stopping slc7 builds for them? At this point I'd expect the probability to have do IgProf memory profiling on them to be negligible. Maybe something we could discuss in the ORP next week? @cms-sw/orp-l2 @smuzaffar |
sounds good. |
It's supposed to be fixed, but we are still encountering problems with it. Apptainer no longer wants to support sl7, so I think we just have to rely on ourselves at this point. I am preparing all of the possible backports and will submit them (before going on vacation for several weeks), and then core/ORP can decide which ones to merge. |
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+heterogeneous |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_13_2_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_14_1_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio, @mandrenguyen (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
backport of #45652