On 09/11/2016 09:32, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
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
I updated auto-pkgsrc-setup to prompt the user about using gfortran globally:
http://acadix.biz/pkgsrc.php
If you answers 'y', it will add PKGSRC_FORTRAN=gfortran to mk.conf for you.