Skip to content
Draft
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 6 additions & 2 deletions configs/common/packages.yaml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ packages:
- ~netcdf
hdf5:
require:
- '@1.14.5'
- '@2.1.0'
- +hl
- +fortran
- +mpi
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -301,9 +301,13 @@ packages:
nemsiogfs:
require:
- '@2.5.4'
# Note: per spack, the first is "preferred", so if you
# need 1.9.0.1, you need to explicitly request it in your spec.
nccmp:
require:
- '@1.9.0.1'
- any_of:
- '@1.11.0.0'
- '@1.9.0.1'

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

v1.9.0.1 still currently required by EPIC / UFS WM.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rickgrubin-noaa This should allow it to be built. The question is: what version is "default" as it were. If that is:

      - any_of:
        - '@1.11.0.0'
        - '@1.9.0.1'

then anything requesting nccmp will get nccmp@1.11.0.0. But if we did:

      - any_of:
        - '@1.9.0.1'
        - '@1.11.0.0'

then nccmpnccmp@1.9.0.1.

One of us will need to add a version pin somewhere.

So I guess a question for @climbfuji, et al, is what is the right way for spack-stack?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

1.9.0.1 can be set in a site-specific packages yaml file and any_of in either order would suffice, I think.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a reason UFS is always pulling back? This makes no sense to me. It's just a file comparison tool. I would think (naively, perhaps) that when updating to spack-stack-2.2 with a new hdf5 and new nccmp, butterfly tests will need to be conducted to move on.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You'd think the order wouldn't matter but per Spack docs:

For any_of and one_of, the order of specs indicates a preference: items that appear earlier in the list are preferred (note that these preferences can be ignored in favor of others).

ncio:
require:
- '@1.1.2'
Expand Down
Loading
Loading