Daniel Macks wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:59:40AM -0400, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Fink is not (!) supposed to be a test-bed for an unreleased
compiler. It is easy enough to build gcc from cvs.
Yes, exactly. Fink is a distribution, not a
Martin,
I'm sorry if we came off as brash and inconsiderate. I definitely was
not advising that we shouldn't package gfortran 4.1-CVS out of
ideology, or blindly following rules. Hopefully my explanations here
can allay your concerns.
First, I agree with you that every package should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 1, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
Martin,
I'm sorry if we came off as brash and inconsiderate. I definitely
was not advising that we shouldn't package gfortran 4.1-CVS out of
ideology, or blindly following rules. Hopefully my
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:59:40AM -0400, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Fink is not (!) supposed to be a test-bed for an unreleased
compiler. It is easy enough to build gcc from cvs.
Yes, exactly. Fink is a distribution, not a testing system.
Am 28.07.2005 um 19:48 schrieb Jack Howarth:
Still one has to ask exactly which compilers in the gcc4 package
we should be focusing on? The gfortran compiler specifically is making
really good progress. With patches to be added today, it should pass
almost all of the NIST Fortran validation
On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Fink is not (!) supposed to be a test-bed for an unreleased
compiler. It is easy enough to build gcc from cvs.
Yes, exactly. Fink is a distribution, not a testing system. There's
no reason that fink (lowercase, the package manager) can't be
On Jul 26, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Peter,
You may have point regarding the 4.1 branch, but I would say that
the 4.0.2 branch is highly unlikely to be much less stable for
gfortran
than the 4.0.1 release is. Again the question really is what is the
purpose of the gcc4
On 28 Jul 2005, at 17:18, David R. Morrison wrote:
Also, there is some danger of confusion between the gcc4 which is
a virtual package that the system provides, designed to insure that
users have the correct Apple gcc package installed, and the gcc4
package...
The virtual pkg is gcc4.0
Still one has to ask exactly which compilers in the gcc4 package
we should be focusing on? The gfortran compiler specifically is making
really good progress. With patches to be added today, it should pass
almost all of the NIST Fortran validation testsuite. I think we would be
far better off
Jeffrey,
Could you possibly add a gfortran package to fink unstable based off
of the main trunk or 4.1 branch? Since g95 and gfortran have heavily
forked, any bugs I find and report against g95 aren't easily checked
against the current gfortran code to see it the problem exists there.
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jack Howarth wrote:
| Jeffrey,
| Could you possibly add a gfortran package to fink unstable based off
| of the main trunk or 4.1 branch? Since g95 and gfortran have heavily
| forked, any bugs I find and report against g95 aren't easily checked
|
Peter,
For the features I need from gfortran, I'll need to be on the
4.1 branch. We should be testing that anyway since it is slated for
release in Sept. In any case, I am trying the following gfortran.info
at the moment...
Jack Howarth wrote:
Peter,
For the features I need from gfortran, I'll need to be on the
4.1 branch. We should be testing that anyway since it is slated for
release in Sept. In any case, I am trying the following gfortran.info
at the moment...
Fink is not, in my opinion, supposed to be a
Peter,
I think one can hardly call the g95 compilers we currently put out
as 'released compilers'. These are daily snapshot builds of g95 which
are broken and fixed at regular intervals.
As for the gcc-4.0.1 package...what is its real purpose? The
compilers other than c and c++ are likely
Jack Howarth wrote:
Peter,
I think one can hardly call the g95 compilers we currently put out
as 'released compilers'. These are daily snapshot builds of g95 which
are broken and fixed at regular intervals.
As for the gcc-4.0.1 package...what is its real purpose? The
compilers other
Peter,
You may have point regarding the 4.1 branch, but I would say that
the 4.0.2 branch is highly unlikely to be much less stable for gfortran
than the 4.0.1 release is. Again the question really is what is the
purpose of the gcc4 package? If it is primarily a release mechanism
for gfortran,
16 matches
Mail list logo
