RFC: Renaming GCC ports and variants

[Frank Schima]

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.


Cheers!
-Frank