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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Copy packages required for OM3 from COSIMA/spack_packages #93

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 17, 2024
Merged

Copy packages required for OM3 from COSIMA/spack_packages #93

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 17, 2024

Conversation

CodeGat
Copy link
Contributor

@CodeGat CodeGat commented Apr 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

In this PR:

References #91

@CodeGat CodeGat requested a review from harshula April 17, 2024 01:21
@CodeGat CodeGat self-assigned this Apr 17, 2024
@CodeGat CodeGat mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2024
Closed
@micaeljtoliveira
Copy link
Collaborator

Probably it would be good to submit the changes to the FMS package upstream.

harshula
harshula reviewed Apr 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
packages/fms/package.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@harshula
Copy link
Collaborator

There's an upstream version of fms at https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/fms/package.py

@harshula
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @micaeljtoliveira , Do you use large_file and/or internal_file_nml variants?

@harshula
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @CodeGat , Probably drop the copying of fms SPD. Spack v0.21 fms is only missing two variants and shouldn't impact your CI.

@micaeljtoliveira
Copy link
Collaborator

micaeljtoliveira commented Apr 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Hi @micaeljtoliveira , Do you use large_file and/or internal_file_nml variants?

Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered adding them ;)

Edit: if you don't add them, the model won't work correctly.

@harshula
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @micaeljtoliveira , Can you please submit the patch upstream? They are default false in the SPD. Can you please elaborate how you use them? Are they default true in FMS' build system?

@micaeljtoliveira
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @micaeljtoliveira , Can you please submit the patch upstream? They are default false in the SPD. Can you please elaborate how you use them? Are they default true in FMS' build system?

Yes, sure, I can submit upstream. +large_file is set explicitly in the environment definition. Looks like internal_file_nml is not set, but I'm afraid I don't remember exactly why. The only thing I'm quite sure is that both are set by in CESM, which was used as a template for OM3.

harshula
harshula approved these changes Apr 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@harshula harshula left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving for merging. We'll fix any remaining issues later.

@CodeGat CodeGat merged commit fd04d9a into main Apr 17, 2024
1 check passed
@CodeGat CodeGat deleted the 91-cosima-packages branch April 17, 2024 06:04
harshula pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2024
@CodeGat @harshula
Add fortranxml package from COSIMA/spack_packages (#93)
0c2201b 
* Required by ACCESS-OM3
* Add url_for_version and removed url specification
* Update maintainer info
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@harshula harshula harshula approved these changes

Assignees

@CodeGat CodeGat

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@CodeGat @micaeljtoliveira @harshula