Build seems to source FCM from SVN instead of the GitHub UM repository

[ccarouge]

From @penguian:

the main FCM configuration is still in the MOSRS mirror, unless this is overridden by the config_root_path Spack variant:

Specifically, https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/spack-packages/blob/main/packages/um/model/vn13p1-am/rose-app.conf contains

config_revision=@124794
config_root_path=fcm:um.xm_br/dev/jhansrbinovsky/u-cv185

and https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/spack-packages/blob/main/packages/um/fcm-make.cfg contains

include = $config_root_path/fcm-make/$platform_config_dir/um-$config_type-$optimisation_level.cfg$config_revision

If we want config_root_path to point to the cloned UM Github repository instead, we need to specify this in the Spack spec.

Alternatively, we could add code to the UM Spack package to ensure that in the case of AM3, config_root_path points to the right place in the cloned UM Github code.

[MartinDix]

The suite build (fcm_make_um/rose-app.conf) now uses

config_root_path=/scratch/$PROJECT/$USER/UM
um_sources=/scratch/$PROJECT/$USER/UM

[penguian]

@ccarouge @MartinDix I am now working on ACCESS-NRI/access-spack-packages#343
Is there a use case where the user legitimately needs the GitHub repository reference for config_root_path to be different from that for um_sources? My new implementation of the UM Spack package recipe would use the "um_ref" variant to specify both.

[ccarouge]

@penguian Not that I can think of.

[MartinDix]

Agreed. I'd actually be against allowing it to be different to avoid confusion.