Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 14:18:11 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Removal of Fortran from the base system Message-ID: <20060527211811.GA9609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <4478BCD6.9060304@pubnix.net> References: <20060527024407.GA2525@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4477C401.2080307@rogers.com> <20060527161923.N38076@fledge.watson.org> <4478B679.9060606@samsco.org> <4478BCD6.9060304@pubnix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 04:55:50PM -0400, Alain Hebert wrote: > Scott Long wrote: > >Andrew R. Reiter wrote: > > > >> > >>Scripps Institute of Oceanography > > > >Obviously a bunch of amateurs who don't really know what they want > >or what they are doing. > > (We cannot expect everybody to be adult enought to get how to use > this mailing-list.) Scott was obviously placing his tongue in his cheek. > The obvious reason was stated before that gFortran was not bug free Do you think gcc-3.4.4 is bug free? Or gcc-4.1.1? Or FreeBSD? > and, in view of the importer, it would be best to have gFortran in ports > until the fortran community voice their opinion about which > implementations is the best one. Actually, kan made the very good point that gfortran requires GMP and MPFR. Importing these libraries for gfortran support would be a mistake. Afterall, GMP was in the base at one point in time and it was removed. > Also, if there is no maintainer for a port, it ease the decision > about which one to keep without having to get in a language/religion war. A port for gfortran is maintained, so this isn't an issue. Additionally, I'm listed as a gfortran maintainer and I almost exclusively use FreeBSD, so gfortran orphaning FreeBSD won't happen. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060527211811.GA9609>