RFC: Renaming GCC ports and variants

[Sean Farley]

Frank Schima writes:

> 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. 

Sure, that's fine, we just all need to decide on something.

>> 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. 

Yep, agreed.

>> 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. 

This is one of my goals. Having this logic in one place would cut down
on a lot of code duplication and unexpected behavior.

> 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. 

That would be a great benefit of everything using one port group for
this: easily changing the default gfortran for all ports.