From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 16 11:44:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00594 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:44:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00589 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:44:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA75064; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:52:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) From: Steve Kargl Message-Id: <199812161952.LAA75064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Fortran in the base system (was Re: sysinstall) In-Reply-To: from Benedikt Stockebrand at "Dec 16, 1998 11:40: 9 am" To: bs_13943_34262@adimus.de (Benedikt Stockebrand) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:52:21 -0800 (PST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG According to Benedikt Stockebrand: > I've really tried to stay out of this discussion, but what the fsck... > I understand why you should stay out of discussions you don't understand. > > Steve Kargl writes: > > > According to Mike Smith: > > > > > This doesn't sound to me like any sort of justification. In fact, it > > > looks like a specific application, and more to the point, a strong > > > argument for having it a port. > > > > > > > A 33% increase in execution time doesn't seem like a good justification? > > It doesn't justify it being part of the base installation. It'll slow > down turnaround times for ``make world'' with only an almost > negligible fraction of users actually using fortran. A Fortran compiler has been part of the base system since FreeBSD 1.1.5. > I'm not sure if you don't understand the distinction between the base > system and the ports collection or don't want to accept the fact that > fortran isn't considered "basic" functionality these days anymore. I fully understand the difference. I'm suggesting the replacement of current inferior functionality with a superior solution. > All claimed advantages have absolutely nothing to do with the question > of placing your fortran compiler in the base system instead of a port. There is already a Fortran compiler in the base system. It is inferior. g77 provides a better replacement. > "Wasting large amounts of disk space" on everyones system because the > base installation comes with fortran is negligible or what? There is already a Fortran compiler in the base system. It is inferior. g77 provides a better replacement. > Sorry, but if you don't want to provide a couple megs of disk space > for a second fortran-optimized gcc setup you shouldn't try to force a > couple megs of disk space down every one elses throat^WSCSI bus. There is already a Fortran compiler in the base system. It is inferior. g77 provides a better replacement. > But seriously, if the BSDs have one huge advantage over assorted Linux > distributions and most commercial Un*xen then it's that it comes with > a fairly small base installation. Add whatever you want to the ports > collection but keep the base system small. agreed. -- Steve finger kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~clesceri/kargl.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message