Update ci spack-config for multi-container CI builds

[CodeGat]

References ACCESS-NRI/build-ci#194

Background

The current setup for CI 2.0 is that we will have a container that contains an upstream instance of spack with all the compilers (and possible low-level packages) that are needed, in order to speed up build times.
This container will connect to runner (downstream) instances of spack, which can use the compilers without needing to build or install them.

Hence we need to demarcate the two different use-cases for ci - one for upstream, and one for the runners (downstream). Here are the changes:

Upstream

• config.yaml - the install_tree for upstream will be /opt/upstream
• modules.yaml - the modules directories will be opt/upstream/modules/opt/upstream/lmod

Runners (downstream)

• upstreams.yaml - The upstream install_tree will be found in /opt/upstream, which (implementation details alert) is a mounted volume in the runner containers, pointing to the upstream /opt/upstream referenced above.

Open Question

• @harshula, I was considering deleting v0.22/ci/*.yaml since it may not be used once this docker compose solution is set up. Is it okay if I delete them?
  • No
• Do we need to set this up for ci/v0.20/ci/v0.21 as well...?
• Should this PR be going into development rather than main

The PR

• For ci/upstream, make install_tree/modules reference /opt/upstream
• For ci/runner, set upstream install_tree to be /opt/upstream
• Add symlinked v0.22/ci/upstream config
• Add symlinked v0.22/ci/runner config

[harshula]

Hi @CodeGat , Please don't delete anything in */ci/. It's used as the starting config for new systems. e.g. Leonardo.

[CodeGat]

Ah, so not just for the build-ci and build-cd systems?

[harshula]

We may need to rename ci after your changes are done.

[harshula]

Hi @CodeGat , Can we go with:

v0.22/ci
v0.22/gadi
v0.22/runner
v0.22/upstream

[harshula]

Also, as required:

common/ci
common/gadi
common/runner
common/upstream

[CodeGat]

Hmmm, I would like to demarcate that runner and upstream are linked together as they are part of the build-ci system, is there any other way we can do such a thing, then? build-ci/runner and build-ci/upstream?

[harshula]

What about ci-runner and ci-upstream?

[CodeGat]

That works for me. I'll update the PR.

[CodeGat]

What do I do with linking to common/ci/packages.yaml? Should that be copied to ci-upstream/ci-runner?

[harshula]

Linking common/ci/packages.yaml in ci-runner/ci-upstream should be fine.