Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:49:53 -0600 From: Glenn Johnson <glennpj@charter.net> To: dochawk@psu.edu Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Creating port for lahey fortran; need to think ahead to others. Message-ID: <20020121234953.GA67953@gforce.johnson.home> In-Reply-To: <200201212240.g0LMeMV08188@fac13.ds.psu.edu> References: <200201212240.g0LMeMV08188@fac13.ds.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? > 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. > All of the f90 ports I know of (and all f77 save g77, which can't > handle multi-dimensional arrays) are commercial; the user must obtain > license and/or executables separately. > > After reading the porter's handbook, my thinking is to create a > f95-lahey port, and then a general fortran port. The fortran port > would check distfiles/fortran for licenses and executables it knows > about, fetch executables (when possible) to match licenses, and > install the most recent version of each that it knows about. (I > cannot conceive of a reasonable situation where the license would be > there, but installation would not be desirable). > > Does this make sense? 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. > 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. -- Glenn Johnson glennpj@charter.net 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?20020121234953.GA67953>