Chris Jones writes: > On 25 Mar 2013, at 10:58pm, Sean Farley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Chris Jones writes: >> >>>>> What do you mean by this exactly? What is the problem with e.g. >>>>> >>>>> depends_build port:gcc47 >>>>> configure.fc ${prefix}/bin/gfortran-mp-4.7 >>>>> ? >>>> >>>> Then what does configure.fc get set to in the +clang variant? >>> >>> Why would you provide a +clang variant in the case of a port that has to >>> use fortran ? Just blacklist any compiler other than a MacPorts gcc >>> compiler, that has gfortran. Or am I missing something. >> >> 1) Because any port that relies on mpi will get a version of mpicc that is >> built with clang and has no corresponding fortran compiler. >> >> 2) Since clang is the new default with Apple, there is great interest in >> the scientific community for building the c part with clang and the >> fortran part with gfortran. >> >> 3) If you have a port that depends on boost and fortran, then with your >> suggestion there will be ABI issues with the C++ libraries. > > I mis understood your example. I thought you said you had ports that *only* > used fortran.
I think it's more of a rough spot when a port needs both but even with ports that solely rely on fortran there is still a problem when using mpi (netcdf-fortran, for instance; or even better mumps). Some of this hardship is because there's no way to know which compiler variant a port's dependency used (see for reference ticket #126). If we solve the variant issue with subports, then I think we're back at having gcc (and friends) split up into subports. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
