Hi @amd-toolchain-support! I noticed that the following package(s) don't yet have maintainers:

• cloverleaf

Are you interested in adopting any of these package(s)? If so, simply add the following to the package class:

    maintainers("amd-toolchain-support")

If not, could you contact the developers of this package and see if they are interested? You can quickly see who has worked on a package with spack blame:

$ spack blame cloverleaf

Thank you for your help! Please don't add maintainers without their consent.

You don't have to be a Spack expert or package developer in order to be a "maintainer," it just gives us a list of users willing to review PRs or debug issues relating to this package. A package can have multiple maintainers; just add a list of GitHub handles of anyone who wants to volunteer.

The old package.py logic was not accurate since Cloverleaf main page is a place holder pointing to other repositories.

Submodules are able to downlead only a specific version of each repository, which is hardcoded to an outdated version (i.e., 3 years old "hashed" version for _ref) in Cloverleaf main page. Moreover, more recent versions have been implemented (e.g, v1.3 and master).

Since the Cloverleaf main page is just a place holder for the real repos (e.g. https://github.com/UK-MAC/CloverLeaf_ref) we'd be inclined to split the packages each of them referring to a specific case. A prototype could be: spack install cloverleaf_<type>@<version>

where type is: ref, mpi, cuda, .... and with a package.py header as following:

git= "https://github.com/UK-MAC/CloverLeaf_ref"
version("master", branch="master")
version("1.3", commit="0ddf495cf21cc59f84e274617522a1383e2c328c")
version(....)

@amd-toolchain-support Thanks for the additional information. It would be good to put that in the description of the PR at some point.

Since the Cloverleaf main page is just a place holder for the real repos (e.g. https://github.com/UK-MAC/CloverLeaf_ref) we'd be inclined to split the packages each of them referring to a specific case.

That would be fine with me, please ping for another review when done. If in the future we add the ability to have spec dependent sources, we can think of unifying the recipes again.

Following the feedback above, a new package for Cloverleaf-ref has been proposed and
accepted: https://github.com/spack/spack/pull/39894 

The Status of this PR can be updated.

The Status of this PR can be updated.

Not sure I understand what you mean. In any case, feel free to update the status of the PR.