-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Add [email protected] #485
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Valid sha256.
There was a problem hiding this 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
.
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. |
There was a problem hiding this 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.
… feature/esmf880b06
…tor to if self.spec.satisifes
57d5cda
to
c684de8
Compare
There was a problem hiding this 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*
.
I fixed the duplicates and removed the old, unused snapshots |
There was a problem hiding this 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.
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