Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:49:53 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/astro/nightfall Makefile ports/benchmarks/himenobench Makefile ports/benchmarks/hpl Makefile ports/biology/molden Makefile ports/biology/ortep3 Makefile ports/biology/platon Makefile ports/biology/psi88 Makefile ports/biology/tinker ... Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901090049340.1119@ync.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0901081120010.12007@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <200901071634.n07GYRXK032137@repoman.freebsd.org> <4965494A.6070803@FreeBSD.org> <1231403223.51790.138.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <alpine.LSU.1.99.0901081120010.12007@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>> Because all the fortran code must be recompiled against new and
>> incompatible fortran library.
>
> Yep. Strictly speaking, only ports with USE_FORTRAN=yes that depend on
> some other port that has USE_FORTRAN=yes, or ports with USE_FORTRAN=yes
> which some other port that has USE_FORTRAN=yes depends on would have
> needed the bump (modulo potential additional "manual" dependencies).
>
> I believe we do not have a reasonable way to determine such a cover, and
> all those OPTIONS and knobs make this even more tricky. And the result
> likely would have been pretty close to the full set anyway...
Thank you both for the explanation.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0901090049340.1119>