Closed vancraar closed 1 year ago
Since we propose a DisCoTec spack package (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/freifrauvonbleifrei/spack/develop/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/discotec/package.py), would it probably be a better idea to build the dependencies cleanly over spack and not have it redundantly in CMake.
Some alternatives for building DisCoTec with spack:
get the spack package:
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/freifrauvonbleifrei/spack/develop/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/discotec/package.py -O $SPACK_ROOT/repos/builtin/packages/discotec/package.py
Variant 0: direct install with spack:
spack install discotec
Variant 1: install DisCoTec and load dependencies:
spack install -y discotec@main%gcc@9.4.0 spack load --only dependencies discotec@main%gcc@9.4.0
Variant 2: spack dev-build
git clone git@github.com:SGpp/DisCoTec.git discotec cd discotec spack dev-build discotec@master
Variant 3: spack develop:
mkdir dev-folder cd dev-folder spack env create -d . spack add discotec spack develop discotec@main spack install
Variant 4: just building the dependencies by hand/with spack
As discussed, it makes more sense to make the HAVE_HIGHFIVE flag unique for DisCoTec and set it PUBLIC. This is implemented in the last commit with DISCOTEC_USE_HIGHFIVE.
Since we propose a DisCoTec spack package (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/freifrauvonbleifrei/spack/develop/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/discotec/package.py), would it probably be a better idea to build the dependencies cleanly over spack and not have it redundantly in CMake.
Some alternatives for building DisCoTec with spack:
get the spack package:
Variant 0: direct install with spack:
Variant 1: install DisCoTec and load dependencies:
Variant 2: spack dev-build
Variant 3: spack develop:
Variant 4: just building the dependencies by hand/with spack