Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:27:26
Message-Id: 4E06FB13.1000909@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now? by Mike Edenfield
1 Mike Edenfield wrote:
2 > On 6/25/2011 8:04 AM, Dale wrote:
3 >
4 >>> We restructured the dependency chain for fortran support,
5 >>> which includes
6 >>> a compile test now. The failure can be seen above.
7 >>>
8 >>> The Problem was in short, USE=fortran was enabled by
9 >>> default for linux
10 >>> arches, but people tend to disable it. Depending on
11 >>> gcc[fortran] doesn't
12 >>> work completely as gcc:4.4[fortran] and gcc:4.5[-fortran]
13 >>> with gcc-4.5
14 >>> select can be installed, which would full fill the
15 >>> dependency but
16 >>> nevertheless doesn't give a working compiler.
17 >>>
18 >>> So now packages depend on virtual/fortran and use an
19 >>> eclass to check for
20 >>> a working compiler. So if you see this message, this means
21 >>> you somehow
22 >>> worked around gcc[fortran].
23 >
24 >> That make sense?
25 >
26 > Yes. He's saying they didn't change the USE flag, they changed the
27 > fortran dependency test to actually do a run-time check for fortran
28 > because the USE flag alone wasn't sufficient.
29 >
30 > Which means you most likely had a non-working cantor and no fortran
31 > compiler before and just didn't notice :)
32 >
33 > --Mike
34 >
35 >
36
37 My understanding, USE flag was there and had been for a long time, got
38 changed, this thread was started, discussion was had, USE flag was put
39 back the way it was. So actually it was only not working while I was
40 messing with it. That would be true ONLY if you were using the
41 defaults. If you had -fortran then nothing should have changed as would
42 having fortran enabled. It was only folks like me that didn't have any
43 mention of fortran that were affected.
44
45 Just one of those things. ;-) As someone else posted, this was minor
46 compared to some things we have ran into.
47
48 Dale
49
50 :-) :-)