On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:00, Eric A. Borisch <ebori...@macports.org> wrote:
> Sorry for the blank email. Gmail interface whoops. > > So I come back from vacation and find the mpich port (I'm maintainer; > with openmaintainer) has been completely [1] revamped. > > The variants no longer do what I intended them to do. MPICH provides a > set of compiler wrappers (mpicc, mpicxx, etc.) that wrap compilers to > support MPI compilation as defined by the MPI standard. Previously the > variants (eg +gcc46) would wrap gcc-mp-4.6, g++-mp-4.6, etc. The > variants have been modified to now only wrap the fortran supplied from > the variant, and the CC and CXX are left to whatever MacPorts is > selecting as default on the system. Some of the variants (+clang and > friends) have been nuked completely. > > Now, I see from the thread (tl;dr) that there's been some thought put > in to what's going on here, and in other ports that use fortran from > gccXX, but I'd like to put mpich back to wrapping the requested > compiler suite (and not just fortran.) If that happens, then mpich cannot be used to build C++ code in other ports. If that is something you're ok with, then fine... we can remove the mpich variant from other ports that would be using it for C++ code. > There was some separate discussion about a multiplecompilers port > group to handle some of these issues. Again, I haven't had time to go > back through all the messages to see what's going on with that and why > these changes were made instead. That is slightly tangential. It would need to do the same thing, but in a portgroup instead of a recipe. > Sooo. I'm considering reverting the changes made to the mpich > portgroup over the past week. Please do not do that without discussing here as that will just reintroduce the problems. > Given that the assumption at the > beginning of this thread - "If the port also has C and C++ sources, > then it would be preferable to leave configure.cc and configure.cxx > alone and just choose a fortran compiler" -- isn't correct in this > case, is there any reason _not_ to revert these changes? Why do you think that is not correct in this case?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
