On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > 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 Yeah it's too outdated to be of any use.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? The one that I find in the base system seems >>> to be a similar match to the one in ports/devel/f2c. >>> 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? 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. > Guess I was looking on an old system, sorry for the noise. ScottReceived on Mon Apr 18 2011 - 14:12:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:13 UTC