On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:37:10 -0700 (PDT) "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip_at_tutopia.com> wrote: > > --- On Mon, 4/18/11, Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org> wrote: > ... > > > Yeah it's too outdated to be of any use. > > > > > > IMHO, you can axe libf2c too... > > > > > > > Honest question here, is there a newer version of libf2c > > that lives in ports and is adopted by people who use > > fortran?š The one that I find in the base system seems > > to be a similar match to the one in ports/devel/f2c.š > > Is the one in the base system a pain to maintain or > > otherwise holding back other work, or has it been made > > obsolete by something in ports?š Is removing it from > > the base system anything more than just churn? > > > > I am a moderate user of Fortran: when I need it I use > gfortran instead of f2c. lang/f2c is in the ports tree, > and the one port I made (tochnog) that actually depends > on libf2c uses the port, not the system library. > > Considering we are not carrying fortran in base anymore, > it would seem logical to kill libf2c, but it must be said > the f2c port originates in netlib, I have no idea where > the GPL'd libf2c comes from or if there is any significant > difference. > > cheers, > > Pedro. > We do not have f2c in tree and it was disconnected from the build even longer than that. -- Alexander Kabaev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:13 UTC