| 1 |
Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011, 10:28:47 schrieb Dale: |
| 2 |
> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 14:58:56 schrieb Peter Humphrey: |
| 4 |
> >> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What |
| 5 |
> >> matters to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I |
| 6 |
> >> don't need a Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system |
| 7 |
> >> resources on building one. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Try euse -I fortran. |
| 10 |
> > If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Regards |
| 13 |
> > Michael |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That doesn't appear to work like it should then. I get this: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> root@fireball / # euse -I fortran |
| 18 |
> global use flags (searching: fortran) |
| 19 |
> ************************************************************ |
| 20 |
> [+ CD ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Installed packages matching this USE flag: |
| 23 |
> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> local use flags (searching: fortran) |
| 26 |
> ************************************************************ |
| 27 |
> no matching entries found |
| 28 |
> root@fireball / # |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Thing is, I know a couple packages use it on this rig because I just had |
| 31 |
> to recompile them. Cantor and R are two that I recall. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Maybe it is because it is not a option in the list? The USE flag that is. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Iirc you had problems with -fortran, because you have packages that really |
| 36 |
need fortran. My suggestion was for people like Peter, who have no problems |
| 37 |
without fortran. It shows only packages which could perform better, if a |
| 38 |
fortran compiler is available and otherwise fallback to a C implementation. At |
| 39 |
least, I think it does :) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Dale |
| 42 |
> :-) :-) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Michael |
Archives