RFC: Renaming GCC ports and variants

Frank Schima mf2k at macports.org
Wed Oct 1 12:08:03 PDT 2014

On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Sean Farley <sean at macports.org> wrote:

> 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.

I say we use gccX.Y. Just renaming gcc ports (for now) won’t be too hard. 

> 2) Rename +gccXY variants to +gfortranXY

Sounds good to me, though we should use +gfortranX.Y if we switch the gcc ports to gccX.Y. 

> 3) Start moving away from configure.compiler=macports-gcc*

This seems like a good idea. In fact, that made me realize what I was doing wrong in #44631. 

We should move all ports with gccXY variants to the compilers portgroup. Sean, I hereby give you permission to fix all of my ports (ifeffit, py-qutip, py-usadel1 at least). Once all or most ports use it, then maybe we can switch to gcc49 (really gfortran4.9) as Ryan proposed earlier. 

Thank you taking this on.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list