Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-13 Thread Zé Loff
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 08:55:24PM +1200, m...@extensibl.com wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:59:49 +0100 > Zé Loff wrote: > > > Not true, I just installed it without having lang/gfortran installed. > > While spatstat does not depend directly on gfortran, its dependency, >

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-13 Thread ml
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:59:49 +0100 Zé Loff wrote: > Not true, I just installed it without having lang/gfortran installed. While spatstat does not depend directly on gfortran, its dependency, deldir, does. Did you compile deldir with g77? I think gfortran could be removed

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-13 Thread Zé Loff
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:26:46AM +1200, m...@extensibl.com wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 07:37:52PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > > > > +1 for nuking it from me too. > > > > Ciao! > > David > > > > > I believe that spatstat module in R requires lang/gfortran to compile. Some > other useful

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-12 Thread ml
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 07:37:52PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > > +1 for nuking it from me too. > > Ciao! > David > > I believe that spatstat module in R requires lang/gfortran to compile. Some other useful modules depend on spatstat, e.g. radiomics. Please do not delete lang/gfortran, I am

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-12 Thread David Coppa
Il 12 luglio 2016 19:21:33 CEST, j...@wxcvbn.org ha scritto: >Just like Qingshan I thought that lang/gfortran was the real deal. >I should have looked closer. Let's forget about the conflict. sthen >and you proposed to delete lang/gfortran: I think that's a good idea. +1 for nuking it from

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-12 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
Tobias Ulmer writes: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:16:48PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: >> Qingshan Chen writes: >> >> > Sorry for the double posting here. The message was originally posted on >> > m...@openbsd.org, and is being re-posted here,

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-10 Thread Qingshan Chen
On 07/10/16 14:10, Qingshan Chen wrote: On 07/10/16 01:00, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2016/07/09 15:47, Thomas Frohwein wrote: On Friday, July 8, 2016 1:10 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports is using it..

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-10 Thread Qingshan Chen
On 07/10/16 01:00, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2016/07/09 15:47, Thomas Frohwein wrote: On Friday, July 8, 2016 1:10 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports is using it.. Some R packages require gfortran to be

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-09 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2016/07/09 15:47, Thomas Frohwein wrote: > > On Friday, July 8, 2016 1:10 PM, Stuart Henderson > > wrote: > > > > Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports is > > > using it.. > > > > Some R packages require gfortran to be built. I managed to

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-09 Thread Thomas Frohwein
> On Friday, July 8, 2016 1:10 PM, Stuart Henderson > wrote: > > Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports is using > > it.. > Some R packages require gfortran to be built. I managed to install gfortran a few weeks ago by manually removing the

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-09 Thread Tobias Ulmer
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:16:48PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > Qingshan Chen writes: > > > Sorry for the double posting here. The message was originally posted on > > m...@openbsd.org, and is being re-posted here, in the hope of reaching > > the right people.

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-08 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
Stuart Henderson writes: > Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports is using > it.. I understand your point, but except for PLIST changes for releases, gfortran doesn't seem to add much maintenance overhead. And, as mentioned by the OP, there are

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-08 Thread Stuart Henderson
Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports is using it.. On 2016/07/07 13:16, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > Qingshan Chen writes: > > > Sorry for the double posting here. The message was originally posted on > > m...@openbsd.org, and is being

Re: Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-07 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
Qingshan Chen writes: > Sorry for the double posting here. The message was originally posted on > m...@openbsd.org, and is being re-posted here, in the hope of reaching > the right people. > > > Hi All, > > It seems that gcc-libs-4.9.3p3 collides with libgfortran-4.3.1p16,

Collision between libgfortran and gcc-libs

2016-07-07 Thread Qingshan Chen
Sorry for the double posting here. The message was originally posted on m...@openbsd.org, and is being re-posted here, in the hope of reaching the right people. Hi All, It seems that gcc-libs-4.9.3p3 collides with libgfortran-4.3.1p16, which is required by gfortran-4.2.1p15. I have run into