Fortran recipe

[Michael Dickens]

Keeping similar-function code (e.g., "how a user selects which Fortran
to use) similar across "Portfile"s is a good objective, but there needs
to be room for each maintainer to do what s/he believes is the correct
thing.  Reviewing the changeset you provided, and the prior Portfile, I
think you're fully justified in reverting it back to what it was before,
if that's what you want to do.  Your "recipe" was pretty concise (unlike
others which declare each variant explicitly and separately), and it
does what -you- as the port maintainer want it to do.  An alternative
would be trying to use the current setup and manipulating it to do what
you want; reverting is easier, of course. My US$0.02 worth, for what
it's worth. - MLD

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013, at 03:00 PM, Eric A. Borisch wrote:
> So I come back from vacation and find the mpich port (I'm maintainer;
> with openmaintainer) has been completely [1] revamped.
> 
> The variants no longer do what I intended them to do. MPICH provides a
> set of compiler wrappers (mpicc, mpicxx, etc.) that wrap compilers to
> support MPI compilation as defined by the MPI standard. Previously the
> variants (eg +gcc46) would wrap gcc-mp-4.6, g++-mp-4.6, etc. The
> variants have been modified to now only wrap the fortran supplied from
> the variant, and the CC and CXX are left to whatever MacPorts is
> selecting as default on the system. Some of the variants (+clang and
> friends) have been nuked completely.
> 
> Now, I see from the thread (tl;dr) that there's been some thought put
> in to what's going on here, and in other ports that use fortran from
> gccXX, but I'd like to put mpich back to wrapping the requested
> compiler suite (and not just fortran.)
> 
> There was some separate discussion about a multiplecompilers port
> group to handle some of these issues. Again, I haven't had time to go
> back through all the messages to see what's going on with that and why
> these changes were made instead.
> 
> Sooo. I'm considering reverting the changes made to the mpich
> portgroup over the past week. Given that the assumption at the
> beginning of this thread - "If the port also has C and C++ sources,
> then it would be preferable to leave configure.cc and configure.cxx
> alone and just choose a fortran compiler" -- isn't correct in this
> case, is there any reason _not_ to revert these changes?