Re: Concensus on PKGSRC_FORTRAN?=gfortran?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost> writes:

> On 2020-03-26 09:58, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost> writes:
>>
>>> I think the only thing to watch out for is people using platforms
>>> where the gcc packages don't build, but some of their builds require
>>> Fortran.  As long as g95 is still available, we'd only be forcing them
>>> to override a default, though, not taking away their ability to
>>> function.
>> And, we can leave OS/version/platform combinations at g95, when we know
>> that's better.
>>
>> Is this a theoretical concern, or an actual known problem?
> This was raised as a reason not to default to gfortran years ago, but
> it's only theoretical AFAIK at this point.  gfortran works well on all
> the platforms I use.

So how about:

  during the freeze we don't change anything

  people doing bulk builds are welcome to flip to gfortran (really,
  anybody doing builds is welcomm to do whatever they want anyway!)

  we see if we get any more feedback

  close after the freeze, we flip the default to gfortran, unconditionally

  as we get reports of trouble, we put in conditionals to put g95 back
  for platforms where that makes sense.  (perhaps we add a .mk for this
  to share between gcc and clang)