ebori...@macports.org writes: > On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Sean Farley wrote: > >> >> ebori...@ieee.org <javascript:;> writes: >> >> > On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Sean Farley wrote: >> >> >> >> But really, we're at the whim of what the macports community whats to do >> >> in this situation. Since my Ph.D is riding on getting a working mpi + >> >> fortran, I'd very much like to iron out these issues and get the ports >> >> chugging along! >> >> >> > >> > Does mpich +gccXX not get you to working fortran and MPI? >> > >> > I'll try to read through some of this thread later, but just looking for >> > clarification on that point. >> >> Again, the issue is when using libraries dependent on mpi and >> exacerbated on dependents of those dependents. This usually results in >> breakage with the inability to specify which compiler to use in the n-th >> dependent. >> > > Again, I haven't scoured the whole thread, but would making sub-ports > rather than variants for the different compilers help? The > dependent's +gcc44+mpich could require the mpich-gcc44 package, for example.
Not really. It just changes the name to the same problem. > I've also been playing with having the fortran compiler specified > separately with a gfortNN variant, so one could build +clangXX+gfortNN. > This opens up an entire new realm of possible breakage, however. Well, I'd suggest just taking the highest stable gfortran and forcing it as a dependency when using clang (which is the only compiler suite to not have a fortran compiler). _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev