[Rivet] installation

[Frank Krauss]

Hi Andy,
well, that's great.  I found out about the dependencies the hard way, 
but I still did not manage to produce an installation.  And since you 
guys appear to claim zero time of developer time it has about zero 
usability at the moment for anyone who cannot rely on it being already 
installed on lxplus.  I guess however that Rivet was also meant for the 
wider MC community, including theorists not sitting at CERN.  For those 
it is pretty much useless, and, the way I see it, because the developers 
mainly aimed at proving how smart they are rather than at having 
something useful.  So, up to now, you just showed me that you guys do 
not give a toss about this part of the community.  Good to know.  I 
sincerely hope this attitude of producing monumental software for the 
nerds is not the new trend in HEP computing.

Needless to say: It is fantastic that Frank S produces an installation 
script now - well done!

Best wishes
       Frank



On 26/01/14 22:59, Andy Buckley wrote:
> Hi Franks,
>
> Well, it's usable in proportion to the amount of developer time that we
> have had to spend on making it nice... the main users what we have had
> to win over are the experiment ones who access it through experiment
> frameworks or from the Genser-built copy. So certainly that's who I've
> been aiming my limited build system dev time at, and to be honest I
> still stand by that choice although I'd rather not have *anyone* annoyed
> by our code.
>
> For a tarball build I think the dependencies are as follows:
>
> YODA requires:
>   * Boost (headers only, but currently asks for quite a new version...
> can maybe be relaxed: any testers?)
>
> Rivet requires:
>   * HepMC, FastJet (unavoidable, I think)
>   * YODA (yes, could have been built-in, but it has wider utility)
>   * yaml-cpp (for 2.1.0 I'd like to use a built-in copy, cf. the latest
> LHAPDF6)
>   * GNU Scientific Library (volunteers to eliminate that dependency? But
> is typically an easily-met requirement, I think)
>   * Boost (headers only, fairly easy version requirement, I think)
>
> If we eliminate yaml-cpp, how much is there to object to? Anyway, yes
> Frank I'd be very happy for you to make a new rivet2-bootstrap script
> which builds everything from scratch... and/or attempts to work out what
> is already on the system? At some level users should make their own
> minds up about what to install from packaging systems and what by
> hand... but by saying that I probably give away what side of Frank's
> nerd fence I'm sitting on ;-)
>
> Anyway, in short I don't see so much room for cutting things down, but
> always think that smoothing the entry paths (with scripts or otherwise)
> is a good thing as long as it's kept manageable for the developers, too.
> Since that's translated as "next to no manpower" for the last... two
> years?, I'm afraid the situation isn't so surprising. But we'll do what
> we can -- certainly I want to get rid of the yaml-cpp explicity
> requirement, and hopefully we can get a couple of new part-time
> developers (re)activated in the coming months.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On 26/01/14 19:47, Frank Siegert wrote:
>> I hate to admit that I agree with Frank's rant here, and I have had
>> multiple users recently who made the same point, though admittedly
>> more politely. The bootstrap script currently is close to useless to
>> everybody who isn't installing on lxplus. I have it on my agenda to
>> replace it with a working version, but haven't got around to it yet.
>> And to be honest, all the changes and external dependencies that came
>> with Rivet2 have left me as a second-class developer (if even),
>> because there is a lot of stuff in the codebase which is beyond my
>> capabilities to fix -- I'm normally quite annoyed myself with even
>> installing Rivet on a new cluster, where
>> cython/yaml/yoda/boost/cmake/hg/fastjet/hepmc... isn't available. Some
>> of those are only necessary for the development version, but it's
>> still rather annoying.
>> This goes far beyond the switch to YODA, which I agree with as
>> necessary, though tbh I originally thought would be Rivet-in-house as
>> well.
>>
>> Anyway, as I'm clearly not the majority of Rivet developers, and
>> mostly everybody else on the team seems to be happy about this usage
>> of fancy new technologies, separation and dependencies, there is no
>> point in discussing that in itself. But we definitely need a usable
>> bootstrap script much more urgently than we needed it for Rivet1.
>>
>> Andy, what about renaming the current rivet2 bootstrap script to
>> rivet-2-bootstrap-lcg, and (me) creating a separate one which actually
>> does all the installations on its own (but without support for Rivet1
>> of course, to avoid it becoming too bloated as the old one did)?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> On 26 January 2014 17:13, Frank Krauss <frank.krauss at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Dear Rivet Authors,
>>> I am just towards the end of my second hour running trying to install Rivet 2.0.  Admittedly, I am not half as geeky and nerdy as you are, so I accepted/anticipated that this would take me an hour.  But, please, can you explain the rationale why you use
>>> cython, yaml, yoda, boost, fastjet & hepmc (I am sure i missed some!)
>>> in a non-trivial way with non-trivial version specifications without providing a meaningful installation guide?  You certainly do not want the common people to use your code - is that it?  If you think this helps the user base you are mightily mistaken.  If you think I will continue to advertise your code, you're delusional - this is next to uninstallable as it stands now, with a pretty superficial installation help.
>>> Best wishes
>>>      Frank
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rivet mailing list
>>> Rivet at projects.hepforge.org
>>> http://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rivet mailing list
>> Rivet at projects.hepforge.org
>> http://www.hepforge.org/lists/listinfo/rivet
>>
>