MAINT: Use RAPIDS 24.10 cmake and scikit-build-core setup

[seberg]

This changes the setup to align it with the typical setup in 24.10 RAPIDS (and future) using scikit-build-core.
legate is currently using 24.10 rapids-cmake, so it seems good to keep this in sync.

[seberg]

rapids-build-backend default to adding a GIT_COMMIT file, which is fine. But because the project name legate-boost and the module name legateboost mismatch, we have to add it explicitly (I think).

EDIT: spelled commit-files here of course.

[jameslamb]

Yes you're exactly right about this. Here's where that behavior was introduced: rapidsai/rapids-build-backend#30

[jameslamb]

Awesome work!

I totally support this... getting caught up to a newer rapids-cmake and switching to scikit-build-core are really nice changes. It's great to see setup.py deleted 😁

Left a few small comments, but overall I support this. I think we should answer the rapids-cmake-sha question before merging this.

[jameslamb]

If you want this to look a bit more like other RAPIDS libraries, then by convention these 2 lists would be spelled like this:

  py_build_legateboost:
    output: pyproject
    pyproject_dir: .
    extras:
      table: build-system
    includes:
      - rapids_build_skbuild
  py_rapids_build_legateboost:
    output: pyproject
    pyproject_dir: .
    extras:
      table: tool.rapids-build-backend
      key: requires
    includes:
      - build
      - build_tools

There are some docs on those conventions at https://github.com/rapidsai/build-planning/blob/d9e3c606d95c835ee384ac6480a4af0ac6cb024a/docs/docs/packaging.md#L85

Not critical, but following RAPIDS conventions does make it easier for more other RAPIDS folks to come in and help out on these repos.

[jameslamb]

With this removed, will the following still work?

legate-boost/contributing.md

Lines 47 to 52 in ba062bf

	If installing with `pip`, set the `CUDAARCHS` environment variable, as described in the CMake docs ([link](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/variable/CMAKE_CUDA_ARCHITECTURES.html)).
	```shell
	CUDAARCHS="70;80" \
	pip install --no-build-isolation --no-deps .
	```

It might need to be updated to something like

SKBUILD_CMAKE_ARGS="-DCMAKE_CUDA_ARCHITECTURES='70;80'"

Or something similar.

[seberg]

Good find! Pushing another commit to introduce rapids_cuda_init_architectures(legateboost), that seems like a reasonable thing to me. In legate-raft and legate-dataframe, I did use the "RAPIDS" architectures (but then, they use rapids libraries...)

The difference is that if you just do a plain pip install . RAPIDS seems to default to the "RAPIDS" architectures and not "native".
So there is a slightly unfortunate change, but at least this will keep working (maybe only with the new commit).

[jameslamb]

Ah perfect, rapids_cuda_init_architectures() seems like the right way to do this (I did not actually know about that 🙈 )

[jameslamb]

I don't know from memory... does the version matter if we're still pinning to a specific commit of rapids-cmake?

I can't tell what version is getting downloaded from the build logs since they're pretty quiet: https://github.com/rapidsai/legate-boost/actions/runs/12374421493/job/34536930592?pr=195

I'd support updating their verbosity. Not sure the right place...maybe PIP INSTALL_ARGS should pick up -v in build.sh? Or maybe we need to set CMake verbosity in scikit-build-core: https://scikit-build-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration.html#verbosity. Or maybe both?

[seberg]

I added a lot of verbosity, but I think not in the one command (the first cmake run) that actually matters :).

As far as I can tell, this was not used at all and I removed it. My suspicion would be it was a temporary work-around at some point, but didn't double check.

[jameslamb]

Ha ok thanks! I think it's great that we're getting this CMake configure output now in CI logs... a lot of solutions to bugs are found in those logs in my experience:

If just removing the sha works then I think we're good to merge this 😁

[jameslamb]

looks great!

[seberg]

Putting it in, I suppose the build in CI may actually fail because gh-196 is required. I'll ask for a review there (it is trivial).