Skip to content

Conversation

@dalcinl
Copy link
Contributor

@dalcinl dalcinl commented Mar 6, 2025

Checklist

  • Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
  • Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
  • Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
  • Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
  • Ensured the license file is being packaged.

jakirkham and others added 30 commits March 28, 2023 04:02
GCC 7 (used with CUDA 10.2) has configuration errors due to missing
features. Plus all other architectures use GCC 9 (with CUDA 11.0). So go
ahead and align on GCC 9 (with CUDA 11.0).
The CUDA 11.0 image on Linux `x86_64` is already on CentOS 7 (as opposed
to CentOS 6 with older CUDA images). So drop the `cos7` portion from the
name.
Switch to CUDA 11.1 to allow updating to GCC 10.
@dalcinl
Copy link
Contributor Author

dalcinl commented Mar 6, 2025

@conda-forge-admin rerender

@conda-forge-admin
Copy link
Contributor

conda-forge-admin commented Mar 6, 2025

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

I do have some suggestions for making it better though...

For recipe/meta.yaml:

  • ℹ️ The recipe is not parsable by parser conda-recipe-manager. The recipe can only be automatically migrated to the new v1 format if it is parseable by conda-recipe-manager.

This message was generated by GitHub Actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-webservices/actions/runs/13707071556. Examine the logs at this URL for more detail.

@dalcinl
Copy link
Contributor Author

dalcinl commented Mar 6, 2025

@minrk What would be the correct approach for building an older release series? Should I merge main while adjusting the version number?

@minrk
Copy link
Member

minrk commented Mar 7, 2025

backporting changes main might be useful (e.g. the activation scripts), but you don't need to. Merge conflicts might be a pain, but just reviewing the changes that would occur from:

git checkout main recipe

and opting to keep what looks appropriate makes sense to me. If this built successfully, I'd probably leave it and move on.

If you want this branch to get dependency bump PRs, we should add

bot:
  abi_migration_branches:
    - 4.x

to conda-forge.yml on main, which will lead to this branch being included in the bot PRs for dependency version bumps.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants