Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/gfortran

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

  Hello,

Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> writes:

> Hi,
>
> From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>, Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:43:47 
> -0400
>
>> 
>> Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> writes:
>> 
>>> You mean that all lang/gcc{3,4}* should be converted to
>>> gcc4*-{c,c++,fortran,...}?
>>> I feel that it is good idea, but I have no idea about how to convert them 
>>> now.
>>> I will try to convert them into separate packages.
>> 
>> I read asau@'s objection as simply being that a package that is part of
>> gcc48 should have gcc48 in the name, so that when fortran based on gcc47
>> or gcc49 comes along, it can have a sensible name.
>
> I see.
> Probably I have misunderstood asau@'s e-mail.
> I will rename lang/gfortran to lang/gfortran48.
> gcc48-gfortran is not so good, I feel.
>
> Thank you.

I still think that it should carry GCC in its name, since this is what it is:
it is Fortran compiler from GCC.

First of all, there's reason why Fortran compiler is not "gfortran" already.
The reason is that there is (or was at the time) no consistency across
platforms on which GCC package suits. This means that we have to do some
additional work on compiler selection in general _before_ we touch
anything else in this respect.

Second, if you want to procede with gfortran from GCC48, there exists
one already. It is part of lang/gcc48. I don't mind if you split it into
pieces, but please, do that in such a way that makes sense. In particular,
it should not raise a flow of questions on the difference.
This is another argument in favour of your gfortran package to have name
like "gcc48-gfortran".


-- 
HE CE3OH...