From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 08:49:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838BB1065676 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:49:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135338FC27 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:49:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29487 invoked by uid 399); 9 Jan 2009 08:49:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 9 Jan 2009 08:49:55 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:49:53 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton To: Gerald Pfeifer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200901071634.n07GYRXK032137@repoman.freebsd.org> <4965494A.6070803@FreeBSD.org> <1231403223.51790.138.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik , 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 ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:49:56 -0000 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