Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:45:14 -0500 From: dochawk@psu.edu To: Glenn Johnson <glennpj@charter.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Creating port for lahey fortran; need to think ahead to others. Message-ID: <200201221445.g0MEjEt02200@fac13.ds.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:49:53 CST." <20020121234953.GA67953@gforce.johnson.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Glen gabbed, > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 05:40:22PM -0500, dochawk@psu.edu wrote: > > Lahey is sending me a copy of their linux fortran compiler to build a > > port. It probably arrives late this week or early next week. > Are they sending you anything different than what one could buy from > them? Nope; it's exactly what people can buy. But installing linux compilers tends to be a pain; the success rate seems to be about 50% > > It is somewhere between possible and likely that a person would have/ > > want multiple fortran compilers on the system--all of which would want > > to be invoked as "f90". It is likely that a person would have one or > > more third party libraries such as IMSL, Nag, and a couple of others. > Personally, I would rather have just one Fortran compiler that did a > good job. That being said, there should be some mechanism in place to > allow one to have multiple compilers and use them easily if that is > necessary. I'd certainly use one most of the time. However, I've foudn haveing a separate compiler when debugging wonderful; when doing my dissertation, I flopped between absoft linux and dec alpha. Also, they all tend to use the same commands (e.g., f90), and I believe they all have a setup command that is used to set paths. My thinking is to extend the setup command so that it also aliases f90. > Not entirely. Are you proposing to maintain a port that will keep > various Fortran compilers up to date? This would imply that you have > all of them and keep them up to date on your own systems which could be > quite expensive. I guess having a port for each compiler would be the > way to go rather than a general one. I'll maintain ports for versions that vendors provide. I'm expecting that the ports would be very close, which is why I'm thinking of the general port that installs everything found. > > Also, what should the linux dependencies be? I know that there are > > (at least) two sets of linux ports at the moment. > I would imagine that you would need the linux_devtools port which is > only matched up with the linux_base-6.1 port at the present. I think > that would pretty much decide the issue. thatwould seem to settle it, yes :) thanks hawk -- What part of "non-negotiable" didn't you understand? /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign dochawk@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201221445.g0MEjEt02200>