Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
@healther -- Does this fix your problem with implicit/explicit? |
alalazo
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2017
Contributor
|
@hartzell yes this removes (at least on my local installation) the automatically installed packages. I wanted to take a shot at this myself, but I ran into an issue regarding the dependencies of You can close #3374 from my side. |
tgamblin
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2017
Member
|
@hartzell: thanks! |
diaena
pushed a commit
to diaena/spack
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2017
This fixes the problem described in spack#3374, which describes `spack find` ignore explicit/implicit. I believe that this was broken in spack#2626. This restores the behavior of implicit/explicit for me. I believe that it does not screw anything else up, but ....
xavierandrade
pushed a commit
to xavierandrade/spack
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2017
This fixes the problem described in spack#3374, which describes `spack find` ignore explicit/implicit. I believe that this was broken in spack#2626. This restores the behavior of implicit/explicit for me. I believe that it does not screw anything else up, but ....
EmreAtes
pushed a commit
to EmreAtes/spack
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2017
This fixes the problem described in spack#3374, which describes `spack find` ignore explicit/implicit. I believe that this was broken in spack#2626. This restores the behavior of implicit/explicit for me. I believe that it does not screw anything else up, but ....
healther
pushed a commit
to electronicvisions/spack
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2017
This fixes the problem described in spack#3374, which describes `spack find` ignore explicit/implicit. I believe that this was broken in spack#2626. This restores the behavior of implicit/explicit for me. I believe that it does not screw anything else up, but ....
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes the problem described in #3374, which describes
spack findignoring the explicit/implicit flags.I believe that this was broken in #2626.
This restores the behavior of implicit/explicit for me.
I believe that it does not screw anything else up, but ....