Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:23:01 -0600 From: gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov To: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: gljohns@bellsouth.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, obrien@NUXI.com Subject: Re: removing f2c from base distribution Message-ID: <19990127102301.A80336@symbion.srrc.usda.gov> In-Reply-To: <199901271314.FAA65788@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from Satoshi Asami on Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 05:14:33AM -0800 References: <19990127005850.A10486@gforce.johnson.home> <199901271314.FAA65788@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 05:14:33AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * The biggest problem has been that the port of g77 has not worked > * properly for quite some time and in fact is currently marked as > * broken. I would anticipate that this situation would not change much in > > That (and bug fix issues, as DavidO contends) all depends on the > commitment of the maintainer (which there is none for the g77 port). > Unless someone who uses g77 regularly steps up to maintain it, it will > remain broken. This is the same for all ports, and I don't see why a > Fortran compiler should be an exception. > > Granted, if won't be blatantly broken if it's in the base > distribution, but that's only because people will yell and scream if > their "make world" doesn't work. If the amount of noise that > generates is significantly different from what happens if it's a > broken port, that's actually a pretty good argument *against* putting > it in the base distribution, as it means we can keep g77 running only > by annoying people who don't use it when it's broken. (1/2 :) > > This port has been marked broken since July last year. Sorry, but I > just don't have a whole lot of sympathy for something that can stay > broken that long without anyone fixing it. ;) > Your points are well taken. I had a local port of g77 that built against our current gcc. I never submitted it however for a couple of reasons: 1. The port I had was for 0.5.19. This will build against our current gcc, but g77 has advanced significantly since then. Unfortunately, the newer versions need gcc 2.8. It was simply easier for me to use the newer versions of g77 with gcc 2.8 or egcs release versions. Note that I said easier for me; some colleagues of mine could/would not want to have to maintain a compiler on their own. Yes, I was told this on a couple of occasions. I can not see a point in me becoming the g77 0.5.19 port maintainer when I am using newer versions of g77. 2. In light of the above, it seemed that f77 (f2c/gcc) was good enough for most cases. The g77 port was not essential because there was fairly good Fortran support in the base system. Apparently this will no longer be the case and therefore the g77 (or f2c) port will become essential. That is to say, essential for those needing Fortran. If it is decided that Fortran support will disappear from the base system and nobody else wants to maintain g77, I will gladly do it. However, I will only maintain a version that I am using so that means I will maintain a port once gcc 2.8 is officially brought in as the stock compiler. -- Glenn Johnson Technician USDA, ARS, SRRC New Orleans, LA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990127102301.A80336>