RFC: Renaming GCC ports and variants

[Sean Farley]

Ryan Schmidt writes:

> On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> Proposal:
>> 
>> Since it seems that we are flat-out disallowing gcc being used as a
>> C/C++ compiler, I think it's time to do some clean up of the code:
>> 
>> 1) Rename gccXY to gcc-X.Y
>
> As I proposed earlier, we might want to avoid using a dash in a port name, because it is nice to have the port name and variant name be the same, therefore I proposed gccX.Y instead of gcc-X.Y. However, renaming existing ports is a pain, and going forward new versions of gcc starting with gcc5 will just have a single major version number so no change would be necessary there.

We really should be consistent then. I personally don't care what the
new name is but we should either have clangX.Y / gccX.Y or clangXY /
gccXY.

>> 2) Rename +gccXY variants to +gfortranXY
>
> Note that some ports use gcc variants not for fortran support but for java support. I'm thinking here of my much-neglected pdftk port, though for that I may just remove the variants and use a single known-good java compiler.

I think the name of the compiler would be more appropriate. In this
case, +gcjXY.