From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 27 04:01:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1340A16AA50 for ; Sat, 27 May 2006 04:01:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com) Received: from web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A158143D48 for ; Sat, 27 May 2006 04:01:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 89909 invoked by uid 60001); 27 May 2006 04:01:52 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sN4xrBWV95VYzfERVPgDoIsbQx5pbsDC4tubBea0Z4B6gmodWprHG+V/mc517uycFpzp7Or4G0XXUnVR1mkky/77EeikBT6XSBKdRN/61QxLt+vzYCySEhstwp1qG+9xP3klBIh69hthmoMFE/sH+u0wdWluqkoN5FcnHsJNZs8= ; Message-ID: <20060527040152.89907.qmail@web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.118.79.75] by web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 27 May 2006 06:01:52 CEST Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 06:01:52 +0200 (CEST) From: To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 27 May 2006 11:19:24 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: [RFC] Removal of Fortran from the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 04:01:53 -0000 Hi; FWIW, I think I am right now the only user of gfortran in the ports tree as I use it for the elmer* ports and really soon for MUMPS (which is finished but being tested). First of all I should mention g77 and gfortran are not ABI compatible by default, and specifying -ff2c to gfortran is not always easy; this has meant, for example, that it was necessary to add a suboptimal package called elmer-mathlibs (with blas, lapack and arpack/parpack) just for elmer. Libraries generated with g77 will not interoperate with the gfortran stuff and some packages (math/blacs comes to mind) will need to be patched to work with gfortran. That said, gfortran41 is a pretty good replacement to g77. I wouldn't count much with Intel's compiler since it's a binary that we can't redistribute and has platform limitations. g95 is better and much more used but it is not easy to package (I tried on amd64). I don't have clear atm if it's a good idea to remove fortran or not but NOT having a fortran compiler in the base system would be extremely weird. A couple of questions to think about: - Will we need a package with the shared libraries that come with gfortran? many packages depend on blas/atlas and other libraries that need fortran but a run dependency on the compiler package would be excessive IMHO. - Perhaps we could remove of the C compiler too? not everyone builds kernels/ports and the gfortran compiler package happens to include a good C compiler ;-). cheers, Pedro. Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com