Open JustinPrivitera opened 1 month ago
This is potentially a hold-over from NERSC days...Our repo then wasn't always up and so it was common for build_visit
invocations in the wild to fail because of it. With GitHub, I think we can expect better reliability and so maybe don't need any fallback anymore.
That said, I still want to have TPLs both in the TPL repo and as assets.
That said, I still want to have TPLs both in the TPL repo and as assets.
I agree.
So what happens when you are working on modifying a build_visit module with a newer version of a TP library that hasn't been vetted yet. Won't the build script fail without a backup URL since the library isn't in the repo yet ?
Downloading the tarball in advance I suppose will help, but that will be a pain when testing multiple platforms or in containers.
I guess I would preemptively put it in to the TPL repo. But that's a good point. We should discuss further when this ticket bubbles to the top.
We will keep the logic in to support this when developing -- but keep urls blank for end-user cases
Ideally, we can do this without a lot of vars that are set to empty strings (we would like to not have those vars at all)
Do we really need fallback URLs for TPL downloads? Why not just make sure everything is in our TPL release on github?