|
From: David C. M. <dav...@ba...> - 2002-07-29 13:32:37
|
"R.K. Owen Ph.D." wrote: > > 1) Does anyone use the .modulerc files? To do things like > module-version Yes - although we use the older .version file to set a default version. If you wish to remove this, then there needs to be an alternate way to set a default verison that can be different for different platforms. > > module-alias No - never was able to figure out the how or why for usings this. > > both of these commands rely on a shallow directory structure > in their implementation. I have never used them for my own > use, though, and can only see a number of limited ways where > they may be useful. The .version file is in the old 2.2b version of modules, and has always been able to work with deep directory structures. > > > I could just assume that both are broken and re-code both into > a workable form, but with slightly different semantics. > > 2) Caching for "module avail". I rarely enable it for my own > systems, but I have maybe 50+ modulefiles on each. 'Modules avail' is a crucially important function. How would one otherwise determine what modulefiles and versions of modulefiles are available? You cannot expect all user to be smart enough to go 'ls' the modulefile areas. After all, isn't one of the principles here to isolate users from having to know inner workings like this? > > > At one of the sites I had frequented, they had hundreds of modulefiles > where each package had modulefiles for various versions, and > they never removed anything no matter how old and crufty. > > I tended to not do "module avail" there because they just had too > much garbage to wade through. (BTW - they used a serious old version, > I used my own instead, but needed --disable-version-magic to read their > .version files.) > You can always cut down on the garbage by doing a 'module avail xxx' (wild cards would be nice here) once you have identified the major application name of interest. Dave |
