Hi,

I would suggest maybe its worth pruning the gcc list a bit as well ? I believe 
e.g. gcc7 at least works all the way down to 10.5, perhaps even older ? Do we 
still need gcc 5, 6?

Chris

> On 7 May 2021, at 1:35 pm, Christopher Nielsen <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> We’re considering retirement of ports openmpi-clang33 and openmpi-clang34, to 
> reduce the number of openmpi-* ports we support. At the moment, the list is 
> quite large, and it’s becoming a challenge to thoroughly test and maintain 
> all of these:
> 
> openmpi-clang                  @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang10                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang11                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang33                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang34                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang37                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang50                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang60                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang70                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang80                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-clang90                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-default                @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc5                   @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc6                   @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc7                   @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc8                   @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc9                   @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc10                  @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> openmpi-gcc49                  @4.1.1          science/openmpi
> 
> While we hope to continue supporting as many of these as possible for the 
> foreseeable future, removing two of the oldest Clang versions would allow us 
> to provide more focus on the rest.
> 
> Please let us know if you use the clang33 or clang34 variations, or know 
> anyone who does.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Chris

Reply via email to