[Re-sent to list from correct address] On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <jerem...@macports.org> wrote: > > 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.
So the issue here is we need to nuke any g++-mp-NN code out of existence if it's going was to be used as a dependency? Just making sure I understand the concern. >> 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. Well, that's why I'm here. :) > >> 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? Because when _I_ install mpich +gcc47 and then call mpicc/mpicxx, I want to get gcc47 (c/c++) behind it. Perhaps I'm doing a hybrid model with OpenMP and can't use clang. I believe there has been discussion about what mpich +gccNN should mean in the past, and I'm not the only one with this expectation / desire. Not sure what the best way is to balance this desire with the other (dependencies) concern. But making mpich +gcc47 where mpicc and mpicxx call llvm-gcc or clang (depending on build platform), but mpif77 calls gfortran-mp-47 is not what I would expect or want from the variant. If I'm the only one that wants it this way anymore, then I can always keep my own private version for myself, I suppose. Thanks, Eric _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
