py26-numpy, py26-scipy, and macports atlas/lapack/blas

[Jack Howarth]

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:57:25PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2009, at 20:10, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 07:50:16PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2009, at 17:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last I checked gcc42 still wouldn't build, but perhaps r57804 fixed
>>>> that. I will try again now.
>>>
>>> Ok, gcc42 still doesn't build for me and at least one other person on
>>> Snow Leopard; see:
>>>
>>> http://trac.macports.org/ticket/21665
>>
>> It shouldn't come as a surprise as the patches I submitted for
>> FSF gcc only went into gcc trunk for gcc 4.4 and later...
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00333.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00428.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00811.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01515.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01532.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg00054.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg00177.html
>
> I suggested in my previous message that perhaps your patches had not  
> been used by MacPorts, since you already said your patches do not work  
> for gcc43, yet gcc43 was modified to work on Snow Leopard.
>

I didn't say that gcc 4.2 couldn't be made to work but that
there wasn't much point of doing so (outside of pdftk which
is broken because it incorrectly mixes c++ and java exceptions
which is no longer permitted in FSF gcc).
>
>> Considering that gcc 4.2.x is currently depreciated and
>> unmaintained by upstream, it is rather pointless to keep
>> it when gcc44 works as well across all architectures.
>> The only reason Apple is stuck at 4.2.1 is because of
>> the GPLv3 licensing issues.
>
> My motivation for gcc42 at this moment is pdftk which does not compile  
> with greater than gcc42.
>
> There are some patches for pdftk from other distributions, though, of  
> which I have just been made aware, which are supposed to help with this, 
> which I will attempt to look into and incorporate.
>
> http://trac.macports.org/ticket/15420
>

Yes, the Gentoo patches are more promising than what Fedora uses (which
requires an openjdk package).