Re: gfortran

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:52:40PM -0500, Jason Bacon wrote:
> On 09/10/16 04:17, Benny Siegert wrote:
> > > Am 08.09.2016 um 17:32 schrieb Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 08:56:50AM -0500, Jason Bacon wrote:
> > > > I started a similar discussion a couple years ago.  The response was that
> > > > g95 is the only thing that works on many platforms and pkgsrc is committed
> > > > to portability.
> > > That's not the point. The point is that all the alternative packages
> > > like gcc49 etc are much more heavy by including things like the Java
> > > backend. You can easily select a different implementation, but for
> > > casual users, it is way too heavy.
> > For the record: I prefer something that’s heavy to something that does not compile at all. I submitted a PR a while ago where I tried to install some package on Linux, and it tried and failed to build g95. gfortran worked.
> > 
> > If a user does a bootstrap, then bmake package-install and gets a failed build until they manually configure the right fortran compiler (something that they most likely do not care about), then that’s a terrible experience.
> > 
> > If g95 is a good default for some platforms and not a good one for others: perhaps we can have a default that’s set in platform Makefiles?
> > 
> 
> Or, perhaps a USE_GFORTRAN variable in mk.conf, to let the user indicate
> that gfortran should be used for all package builds?

You can already select a different fortran backend with PKGSRC_FORTRAN.

Joerg