Re: math/blas and math/lapack broken: cannot find -lf95

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Thu, 16 May 
2013 00:29:34 +0200

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:22:50PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:09:38PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:21:37PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>> > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 03:12:44PM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> > > > Old libtool-base has
>> > > > 
>> > > > USE_LANGUAGES=  c c++ fortran77
>> > > > 
>> > > > in its Makefile.
>> > > > And libtool-fortran has
>> > > > 
>> > > > USE_LANGUAGES= c c++ fortran
>> > > > 
>> > > > in its Makefile.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Should the following patch be committed?
>> > > 
>> > > Thank you, I've committed a similar patch.
>> > 
>> > Thanks for honouring OWNER. Please revert, the dependency on fortran was
>> > intentional.
>> 
>> Well, you broke it and didn't reply to the breakage, nor did you
>> comment negatively on the patch.
> 
> I didn't comment on it at all. Which should point out that I either
> didn't have time to deal with it or didn't read it at all.
> 
> Now about the content of the reverted change: it is wrong. It is
> artifically pessimizing the build for ancient Fortran, which is clearly
> not useful for most of the things that depend on Fortran. So the real
> question is now, whether there is any point in keeping Fortran77 support
> as individual option, given that you can't easily mix different Fortran
> implementations due to the general lack of a stable ABI. Use a
> consistent Fortran compiler for "fortran" and "fortran77" and this
> problem doesn't appear.

If fortran and fortran77 should use same compiler, what is the mean of
having separate compiler options, fortran and fortran77.

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3