Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
To: Tom Van Doorsselaere <tomvd@××××××××××××.be>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, gentoo-science@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] dev-lang/icc and dev-lang/ifc candidates for removal
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:05:59
Message-Id: 4280F817.6060402@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] dev-lang/icc and dev-lang/ifc candidates for removal by Tom Van Doorsselaere
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Hi Tom,
5
6 > |>>Unless someone steps up, the intel compiler toolchain
7 > |>>packages dev-lang/icc (intel cc) and dev-lang/ifc (intel fortran
8 > |>>compiler) are prime candidates for removal from the tree; open bugs,
9 > |>>primary maintainer is retired, and no devs have moved in to pick up the
10 > |>>packages, let along touched the changeslogs in around a year.
11
12 > | In case there are no security Bugs, i'd like to ask you to leave them in
13 > | for the time being, I'm working on getting the latest versions (8.0/8.1)
14 > | of ifort (how it is now known) and icc into the tree. The only problem
15 > | are my time constraints atm :-/. Though I have ebuilds ready, it will
16 > | still take some time to remove some minor itches before I'd commit them.
17 >
18 > Please contact me in case you need any help to test the ebuilds. I think
19 > these ebuilds are far too important to be deleted from the portage tree.
20 > These tools are crucial for my (and other people's) job.
21 > Also add sci-libs/mkl to this list.
22
23 (CCing gentoo-sci@l.g.o, as i guess i'll thus reach the majority of icc
24 dependant Gentoo users)
25
26 I'll appreciate any help I can get on that :-)
27
28 Some of my thoughts on current problems (w/o having searched bugzilla yet!)
29
30 dev-lang/icc and dev-lang/ifc
31 * No support for icc/ifort in (g)cc-config.
32
33 * Different naming schemes for distributed packages. A friend of mine
34 has a l_intel_cc_pu_${PV}.tar.gz for his academic work. I got a
35 l_intel_cc_p_${PV}.tar.gz from Intel's premier support... go
36 figure... :-/ Is it valid to specify
37 SRC_URI="|| ( file1 file2 )"
38 in an ebuild ? Or can we use wildcards in SRC_URI?
39 * icc depends on gcc's libstdc++, so changing your gcc version affects
40 icc and can even break it.
41
42 sci-libs/mkl
43 * integration in current virtual/{blas,lapack} scheme is missing (but
44 in the works for app-admin/eclectic)
45 * some lapack functions have uncommon naming scheme ('z' prefix where
46 'd' would be expected.)
47 * distributed via binary installer that has a rpm file as payload which
48 can't be extracted. Up to now, i always have to run the installer
49 once to obtain the rpm file.
50
51 all of the above
52 * New versions need fetch restrictions turned on. This means for all
53 users of the old (and free as in beer) versions some nastiness for
54 the next update. Also, the old versions would be removed:
55 Slotting? if yes, based on what?
56
57 icc/ifc use flags:
58 * These are scary. Using a different compiler should not be achieved
59 by setting a useflag, neither local nor global one.
60
61 I'd like to have some feedback on these problems :-)
62
63 Danny
64 - --
65 Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
66 Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
67 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
68 Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
69
70 iD8DBQFCgPgXaVNL8NrtU6IRAmb2AJ4ryP18mNxTUcS/WdfHNi+LDYsXlwCgplGz
71 dUZIpvoc+FP0gLXgzaaF/aU=
72 =7/T2
73 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
74 --
75 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies