Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add [email protected] #485

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 27, 2024
Merged

Conversation

climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

@climbfuji climbfuji commented Nov 19, 2024

Add [email protected]. As usual, these beta snapshots are not intended for the upstream spack develop.

Contains a tiny bug fix so that the chmod_scripts patch is really only applied for @:7.0 (will create PR for this for spack develop).

I also removed old, unused snapshots from the package.

Testing in spack-stack: JCSDA/spack-stack#1385

Copy link
Collaborator

@theurich theurich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Valid sha256.

Copy link
Collaborator

@theurich theurich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am second guessing my previous PR approval... because I am running into problems using the spack-stack install on Nautilus with the gerhard/hinterp-conserve branch.

I see that we typically use the commit hash for beta tags, and sha256 only for official release tags. I would not think that this matters, since I validated the sha256 with spack checksum esmf 8.8.0b06. But maybe it is safer to use the commit hash for beta tags??? If so, the correct commit hash for v8.8.0b06 is aed3278586544bb7687bb03b5c9b65dff67c18a8.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Oh no. I can change that, but then I need to reinstall ESMF.

@theurich
Copy link
Collaborator

Oh no. I can change that, but then I need to reinstall ESMF.

Let me try to understand this better before you do the extra work.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Oh no. I can change that, but then I need to reinstall ESMF.

Let me try to understand this better before you do the extra work.

That would be great. I made the sha to commit change, but I worry that there are new/different build options than what we've used in the past.

Copy link
Collaborator

@theurich theurich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I validated that what you get with

version("8.8.0b06", sha256="760c9c628e6a4b6560434f7f7285c74eef7c9262fa49c8b87ca9bbb638b62518")

is the same as with

version("8.8.0b06", commit="aed3278586544bb7687bb03b5c9b65dff67c18a8")

So that is not the difference/problem.

Copy link
Collaborator

@theurich theurich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is a duplicate ESMF 8.6.1 in the list of versions. I think the one on line 37 of var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/esmf/package.py should be deleted.
Also not sure if 8.6.1b04 is still relevant for anyone using spack-stack? Less sure about the 8.7.0b*.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I fixed the duplicates and removed the old, unused snapshots

Copy link
Collaborator

@theurich theurich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! Looks good to me now.

@climbfuji climbfuji merged commit 5f691ee into JCSDA:spack-stack-dev Nov 27, 2024
15 checks passed
@climbfuji climbfuji deleted the feature/esmf880b06 branch November 27, 2024 01:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
NAVY United States Naval Research Lab
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants