Skip to content

Port all conda recipes to rattler-build & use strict channel priority - #864

Draft
gforsyth wants to merge 38 commits into
rapidsai:mainfrom
gforsyth:rattler-build
Draft

Port all conda recipes to rattler-build & use strict channel priority#864
gforsyth wants to merge 38 commits into
rapidsai:mainfrom
gforsyth:rattler-build

Conversation

@gforsyth

@gforsyth gforsyth commented Apr 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Port all condabuild recipes over to use rattler-build instead.

Contributes to rapidsai/build-planning#47

@gforsyth gforsyth added improvement Improves an existing functionality non-breaking Introduces a non-breaking change labels Apr 3, 2025
@copy-pr-bot

copy-pr-bot Bot commented Apr 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Auto-sync is disabled for draft pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

@gforsyth

gforsyth commented Apr 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

3 similar comments
@gforsyth

gforsyth commented Apr 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@gforsyth

gforsyth commented Apr 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@gforsyth

gforsyth commented Apr 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@gforsyth

gforsyth commented Apr 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@gforsyth

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test 7ab3a96

@gforsyth

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

We discussed this again at the cuCIM meeting this week, but didn't see an obvious cause for the test failures

Diffing the changes relative to a recent passing PR ( #867 ) didn't provide any obvious clues

Tried updating this PR and opening a fresh testing PR ( #868 ). The latter passed whereas this still failed

Am starting wondering if there is something unique to the changes in this PR, which lead to the CI failures we see. Still not sure exactly what change causes it though

@jakirkham jakirkham changed the title Port all conda recipes to rattler-build Port all conda recipes to rattler-build & use strict channel priority Apr 16, 2025
@gforsyth

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

We discussed this again at the cuCIM meeting this week, but didn't see an obvious cause for the test failures

Diffing the changes relative to a recent passing PR ( #867 ) didn't provide any obvious clues

Tried updating this PR and opening a fresh testing PR ( #868 ). The latter passed whereas this still failed

Am starting wondering if there is something unique to the changes in this PR, which lead to the CI failures we see. Still not sure exactly what change causes it though

Ok, thanks for looking into that @jakirkham ! I'll start combing through the recipe with a fine-toothed comb

@gforsyth

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@jakirkham
jakirkham changed the base branch from branch-25.10 to main June 25, 2026 00:44
@jakirkham
jakirkham force-pushed the rattler-build branch 2 times, most recently from dbb26c1 to 4d834d4 Compare June 25, 2026 01:05
@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 15422e9

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 71802ee

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test ef5a9fb

The variable already contains a range with comparison operators. So
adding `=`s in front just causes issues. Hence the `=`s is dropped.
@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test dec1858

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test d8ed094

This is needed for Jinja like `${{ git.head_rev(".")[:8] }}`, which
RAPIDS frequently uses in its package build strings.
@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 4fd8c8f

Looks like this is already being passed in via the rattler environment
variable arguments. So drop the extra manual addition from the C++
builds.
@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 98a044f

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 1c78cd6

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 5313a03

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test 5448cf7

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

improvement Improves an existing functionality non-breaking Introduces a non-breaking change

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants