Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Created attachment 767102 [details] Ignore version not located in current directory Description of problem: SourceVers() doesn't ignore (and report as ERR_BADMODNAM) ModulesVersion if set to module in nested directory. It doesn't comply with the documentation `man modulefiles` which says: Locating Modulefiles ... If the .version file exists, it is opened and interpreted as Tcl code and takes precedence over a .modulerc file in the same directory. If the Tcl variable ModulesVersion is set by the .version file, modulecmd will use the name as if it specifies a modulefile in the directory. This will become the default module file in this case. If ModulesVersion is a directory, the search begins anew down that directory. If the name does not match any files located in the ___current___ directory, the search continues through the remaining directories in MODULEPATH. ... Thus e.g. `module avail` wrongly diplays misleading information, that nested module is default, but this is (as expected) ignored by e.g. `module load` commands. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): environment-modules-3.2.10-5.fc19 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. create directory tree with modules as: $ find $MODULEPATH /home/test2/modules /home/test2/modules/compiler_a /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/compiler_a.1.2 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/compiler_a.1.0 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/branch_7 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/branch_7/compiler_a7.2.0 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/branch_6 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/branch_6/compiler_a6.2.0 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/compiler_a.2.0 /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/compiler_a.2.1a /home/test2/modules/compiler_a/.version /home/test2/modules/compiler_b /home/test2/modules/compiler_b/compiler_b.2.0 /home/test2/modules/compiler_b/compiler_b.2.1a /home/test2/modules/compiler_b/compiler_b.1.0 /home/test2/modules/compiler_b/compiler_b.1.2 2. set the version $ cat modules/compiler_a/.version #%Module1.0 ## set ModulesVersion "branch_7/compiler_a7.2.0" 3. execute $ module avail -l Actual results: - Package -----------------------------+- Versions -+- Last mod. ------ /home/test2/modules: compiler_a/branch_6/compiler_a6.2.0 2013/06/11 7:33:59 compiler_a/branch_7/compiler_a7.2.0 default 2013/06/11 7:33:59 compiler_a/compiler_a.1.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_a/compiler_a.1.2 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_a/compiler_a.2.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_a/compiler_a.2.1a 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.1.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.1.2 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.2.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.2.1a 2013/06/05 12:16:02 Expected results: - Package -----------------------------+- Versions -+- Last mod. ------ /home/test2/modules: compiler_a(6):PROB:155: Invalid modulename 'branch_7/compiler_a7.2.0' found modules/compiler_a(6):PROB:155: Invalid modulename 'branch_7/compiler_a7.2.0' found compiler_a/branch_6/compiler_a6.2.0 2013/06/11 7:33:59 compiler_a/branch_7/compiler_a7.2.0 2013/06/11 7:33:59 compiler_a/compiler_a.1.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_a/compiler_a.1.2 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_a/compiler_a.2.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_a/compiler_a.2.1a 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.1.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.1.2 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.2.0 2013/06/05 12:16:02 compiler_b/compiler_b.2.1a 2013/06/05 12:16:02 Additional info:
Looking at the patch, what happens if the 'version' is specified with a './' ?
It will ignore that version. If I understand well the manual and behaviour of e.g. `module load` file existing in current directory is expected as the value of version. In that case adding './' prefix IMHO has no reason/use case, rather makes the conf files less readable. If there's a use case or user base using './' prefix already or if there's a plan to support version in nested directories for commands like `module load`, we are in different situation of course. Upstream may want to have their say here.
Reported upstream: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=51E4F260.1070006%40redhat.com&forum_name=modules-interest
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 19 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.