On 30.09.2016 09:24, David Holland wrote: > It was brought to my attention that there was an old PR from 2009 > suggesting adding fortran back to base (by including the gcc fortran > frontend) because otherwise various messy things happened with pkgsrc > packages using fortran. > > Those particular pkgsrc issues no longer apply, but others do, and > there's been some talk about that lately -- the default in pkgsrc is > g95, but g95 is old, dead upstream, and not without issues; the > alternative is building a pkgsrc gcc with fortran but this, in > addition to being a general pain, potentially leads to problems with > the pkgsrc gcc and base gcc not being quite compatible. > > Meanwhile, much as we'd like to pretend fortran is dead, it's not and > that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. It's certainly > reasonable to include a fortran compiler in base, as well as > historically accepted. I don't know if we ought to or not, but I think > it's worth noting the pros and cons. > > (for reference, the PR is 41220) > It's a reasonable option as projects switched to gfortran long time ago and g95 is not tested as much by the FORTRAN community.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature