Skip to content
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

Implement NVIDIA HPC SDK #62

Merged

Conversation

lbgracioso
Copy link
Collaborator

This is just a first idea, a draft.

I'd like to know what we need to do with the NVIDIA HPC SDK to be able to integrate everything.

And I'm also waiting for the draft #53 to be reviewed and approved so I can integrate the repo in a more organized way.

lbgracioso and others added 4 commits April 25, 2024 11:11
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gracioso <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gracioso <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gracioso <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gracioso <[email protected]>
@viniciusferrao
Copy link
Owner

I would avoid the class. Just use the repos mechanism instead? Be cause this way we have control to which repository we should use.

@lbgracioso
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@viniciusferrao What do you mean by "use the repos mechanism"? To install the nvhpc package?

@lbgracioso
Copy link
Collaborator Author

With the approval of the PR for the use of local repository, the gpgkeys.h and gpgtools.h headers are added. I'm going to add the repository now and send a commit.

Signed-off-by: Lucas Gracioso <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gracioso <[email protected]>
@viniciusferrao
Copy link
Owner

@viniciusferrao What do you mean by "use the repos mechanism"? To install the nvhpc package?

If I'm not wrong the package if just some repos for /etc/yum.repos.d/ and GPG keys. If that's really the case is just a repository.

@lbgracioso
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I don't think it would be a good idea... I think it's better to make the separation between tool and repo clear.

If the repo classes start installing the tools, better to redefine the repo class to another name and its functionalities too... I prefer it separately, more specific.

@lbgracioso lbgracioso added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 26, 2024
Signed-off-by: Vinícius Ferrão <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Vinícius Ferrão <[email protected]>
@viniciusferrao
Copy link
Owner

I don't think it would be a good idea... I think it's better to make the separation between tool and repo clear.

If the repo classes start installing the tools, better to redefine the repo class to another name and its functionalities too... I prefer it separately, more specific.

I got what you mean. You explicit mean the installation of the package and I was questioning the way to add to repository to the system.

I will approve it as is. Not sure exactly but seems good enough for now.

@viniciusferrao viniciusferrao marked this pull request as ready for review July 1, 2024 19:16
@viniciusferrao viniciusferrao merged commit 6fad84a into viniciusferrao:master Jul 1, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants