Skip to content

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

Draft
gforsyth wants to merge 27 commits into
rapidsai:mainfrom
gforsyth:rattler-build
Draft

Port all conda recipes to rattler-build & use strict channel priority#864
gforsyth wants to merge 27 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

@gforsyth

gforsyth commented Jul 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/ok to test

@jakirkham jakirkham changed the base branch from branch-25.08 to branch-25.10 July 31, 2025 19:13
@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Have moved this to 25.10

rapids-bot Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2025
This is the last project in RAPIDS that hasn't converted its conda builds from `conda-build` to `rattler-build`.

That's happening in #864, but that PR isn't yet close to passing.

In rapidsai/gha-tools#145, I'm working on reducing complexity in `gha-tools` by removing unused tools. This repo is the last RAPIDS project using `rapids-configure-conda-channels`, and that usage won't be removed until #864 is complete.

To unblock that cleanup in `gha-tools`, this PR proposes checking in a copy of `rapids-configure-conda-channels` in this repo. That'll allow the work in `gha-tools` to proceed without being blocked by `cucim`'s migration to `rattler-build`.

Authors:
  - James Lamb (https://github.com/jameslamb)

Approvers:
  - Gil Forsyth (https://github.com/gforsyth)

URL: #923
@jameslamb

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adding a note that #923 should be reverted on this branch whenever this PR is revived.

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adding a note that #923 should be reverted on this branch whenever this PR is revived.

I've gone ahead and made this change to this PR

It would be good to make sure this PR doesn't fall too far behind. We would like to merge it once it passes

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ok to test

@jakirkham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/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

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