esmf does not compile on macOS Mojave 10.14.1

[GeneralDuke9]

I recently upgraded to Mojave 10.14.1 and the compilation of esmf did not succeed. I have attached main.log, and it looks like (l. 2043) an include statement is missing in ESMC_Conf.h.

[GeneralDuke9]

main.log of installing esmf port

[Dave-Allured (Dave Allured)]

Might be duplicate of #57493. This was a similar build failure of esmf variant +gcc8, on OS High Sierra 10.13.6. "size_t does not name a type", etc.

[Dave-Allured (Dave Allured)]

ESMF @7_1_0r_1, default variant, now compiles for me on Mojave. I tried compiling only, no run testing. I am installing in a private Macports directory without using root privileges; this probably does not matter. Prerequisites are XCode 10.1, Apple's Command Line Developer Tools, and X11 as described in steps 1-4, section 2 "Installing MacPorts" on this page:

https://www.macports.org/install.php

My recipe starts with an empty ports directory, no ports installed:

Create private Macports directory
Install Macports 2.5.4 core

port selfupdate
port install cctools
port uninstall libunwind-headers
port install gcc8
port install esmf

This should work the same way with a normal Macports install in /opt/local, but I did not check. @GeneralDuke9, will this solve your compile problem?

[Dave-Allured (Dave Allured)]

List of installed port versions after above procedure

[Dave-Allured (Dave Allured)]

Above recipe was on Mojave 10.14.3, in case that matters.

[GeneralDuke9]

I just now realize I haven't been completely accurate in my initial ticket submission. I forgot that I had set +gcc8 as a default variant, and now it seems that this is what causes the problems. Running your recipe or just installing esmf immediately, without any specified variants, installs esmf correctly. Still, it does not work when I specify the +gcc8 variant.

Apologies for being inaccurate before.

[Dave-Allured (Dave Allured)]

@GeneralDuke9, do you have a specific need for the esmf +gcc8 variant? Otherwise, can we close and mark this ticket as duplicate of #57493?

[GeneralDuke9]

Other than preferring to work with latest software, no. It is indeed a duplicate, again my apologies!

[Dave-Allured (Dave Allured)]

@DeneralDuke9, you were right in the first place. It is nothing more than a missing include. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Please see ​my explanation in the other ticket.

I am waiting for the next ESMF public release. However, you can probably patch the current code if you want the esmf +gcc8 variant sooner. I did not test this beyond getting a good compile.

Maintainer, please close this ticket as duplicate of #57493.