Closed mathomp4 closed 3 years ago
Looks like a good first attempt. Is this possibly a good time to introduce the string "Fortran" into the vendor files? Ala how ecbuild did it? Other than that, I'm ready to hit approve.
Thanks.
Done. Please check the new changes.
Thanks for the ping @mathomp4. I'll review it by the end of the day.
Thanks for the ping @mathomp4. I'll review it by the end of the day.
@LiamBindle Thanks. My hope is that you don't have to change anything, but I don't know if you/GCHP (or @rmontuoro/UFS) do anything that was reaching further into ESMA_cmake than our fixture CMakeLists.txt
do (which is just include(esma)
and include(esma_cpack)
.
@mathomp4 Yeah, looks good to me. I don't see anything that will cause us problems on the GCHP side of things.
Closes #206
This PR refactors the ESMA_cmake code into subdirectories per #206.
Testing with GEOSgcm shows this to be zero-diff. (As it should be as I'm just moving things around.) However, I have absolutely no idea if I've just crushed and destroyed UFS (@rmontuoro) or GCHP (@LiamBindle). So, in case I have, I'm adding this with a blocking label until they can respond with a yea/nay on this refactoring.