| 1 |
On 22/06/11 09:55, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:15:35 +0200 |
| 3 |
> justin <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 21/06/11 16:18, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:17 AM, justin <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> HI, |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> with the addition of the fortran-2.eclass, it is possible to |
| 10 |
>>>> remove the USE=fortran from the default profiles. Any objections? |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> justin |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Nope, I actually suggested this back in December, and no one |
| 15 |
>>> bothered to respond. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> Sounds good to me, |
| 18 |
>>> Matt |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Removing fortran and adding an dependency on virtual/fortran lets |
| 22 |
>> portage select dev-lang/ifc as the fortran compiler of choice. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> That's because portage doesn't suggest USE changes for one-of deps, and |
| 25 |
> just falls back to first USE-clean option. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
In my tests it does. if there only gcc[-fortra] present, it asks me to |
| 29 |
change the USE. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
>> I reverted it back temporarily, so everything should be fine now |
| 32 |
>> again. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> As said on IRC, if you really intend to do a thing like that, you |
| 35 |
> should re-enable fortfran on the gcc package by default. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I reverted to where we came from. Every further proceeding will be |
| 39 |
coordinated with the toolchain guys. Generally I would like to remove |
| 40 |
USE=fortran from default, as nearly solely science packages are written |
| 41 |
in fortran and I doubt that nearly half of the user base do science. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I will come up with a plan. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
jusitn |
Archives