Update CRTM from spack develop, and changes required for unified spack-stack environment#216
Conversation
AlexanderRichert-NOAA
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Verified CRTM packages match main Spack. Rest looks reasonable but I didn't test anything.
|
Yes, those hashes changed recently, and we made the update in the authoritative spack repo alraedy, just bringing them over to our fork.
… On Jan 27, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Stephen Herbener ***@***.***> wrote:
@srherbener commented on this pull request.
In var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/crtm-fix/package.py <#216 (comment)>:
> version("2.4.0_emc", sha256="88d659ae5bc4434f7fafa232ff65b4c48442d2d1a25f8fc96078094fa572ac1a")
- version("2.3.0_emc", sha256="fde73bb41c3c00666ab0eb8c40895e02d36fa8d7b0896c276375214a1ddaab8f")
+ version("2.3.0_emc", sha256="1452af2d1d11d57ef3c57b6b861646541e7042a9b0f3c230f9a82854d7e90924")
Why is this commit hash changing? Did the tag move in the crtm repo or is it correcting a mistake?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#216 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB5C2RJ2WUYZIGQWWFFZEJDWURGFJANCNFSM6AAAAAAUGPIBJE>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
|
@climbfuji thanks for the explanation. I'm okay with this change. |
…pack into feature/unified-env
Description
Testing and more information
See JCSDA/spack-stack#454