Fortran recipe

[Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia]

On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:00, Eric A. Borisch <eborisch at macports.org> wrote:

> Sorry for the blank email. Gmail interface whoops.
> 
> 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.)

If that happens, then mpich cannot be used to build C++ code in other ports.  If that is something you're ok with, then fine... we can remove the mpich variant from other ports that would be using it for C++ code.

> 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.

That is slightly tangential.  It would need to do the same thing, but in a portgroup instead of a recipe.

> Sooo. I'm considering reverting the changes made to the mpich
> portgroup over the past week.

Please do not do that without discussing here as that will just reintroduce the problems.

> 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?

Why do you think that is not correct in this case?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20130828/2bc23b89/attachment.p7s>