On Oct 1, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Sean Farley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I say we use gccX.Y. Just renaming gcc ports (for now) won’t be too hard. > 2) Rename +gccXY variants to +gfortranXY Sounds good to me, though we should use +gfortranX.Y if we switch the gcc ports to gccX.Y. > 3) Start moving away from configure.compiler=macports-gcc* This seems like a good idea. In fact, that made me realize what I was doing wrong in #44631. We should move all ports with gccXY variants to the compilers portgroup. Sean, I hereby give you permission to fix all of my ports (ifeffit, py-qutip, py-usadel1 at least). Once all or most ports use it, then maybe we can switch to gcc49 (really gfortran4.9) as Ryan proposed earlier. Thank you taking this on. Cheers! -Frank _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
