Ryan Schmidt writes: > On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > >> Proposal: >> >> Since it seems that we are flat-out disallowing gcc being used as a >> C/C++ compiler, I think it's time to do some clean up of the code: >> >> 1) Rename gccXY to gcc-X.Y > > As I proposed earlier, we might want to avoid using a dash in a port name, > because it is nice to have the port name and variant name be the same, > therefore I proposed gccX.Y instead of gcc-X.Y. However, renaming existing > ports is a pain, and going forward new versions of gcc starting with gcc5 > will just have a single major version number so no change would be necessary > there.
We really should be consistent then. I personally don't care what the new name is but we should either have clangX.Y / gccX.Y or clangXY / gccXY. >> 2) Rename +gccXY variants to +gfortranXY > > Note that some ports use gcc variants not for fortran support but for java > support. I'm thinking here of my much-neglected pdftk port, though for that I > may just remove the variants and use a single known-good java compiler. I think the name of the compiler would be more appropriate. In this case, +gcjXY. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
