Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 03:52:58PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote: ... Many people don't seem to understand that FreeBSD can be used for workstations as well as servers and Fortran is *essential* on a scientific/engineering workstation. ... Absolutely correct. Some up-and-coming IBM simulation ports require Fortran categorically. It's tough answering questions like FreeB... what? Is that like Linux? Without a STANDARD system Fortran compiler an operating system is unlikely to be taken seriously by ANY large engineering company. We could, however, do without fortune. :-) -- Daniel Ortmann IBM Circuit Technology 2414 30 av NW, #DE315, bldg 040-2 Rochester, MN 55901 3605 Hwy 52 N 507.288.7732 (h) 507.253.6795 (w) ortm...@isl.net ortm...@us.ibm.com -- The answers are so simple and we all know where to look, but it's easier just to avoid the question. -- Kansas To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Thus spake Brian Handy ha...@lambic.physics.montana.edu On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote: [g77 in the source tree] I have to agree here...I personally know noone that actually uses Fortran...having it as an option to turn off would be nice...one less thing to compile on a buildworld... I know *lots* of people that use FORTRAN. That aside, I think I'd be satisfied with a port. Brian I can see that it would get out of sync very rapidly with our cc - Please put the sources in with egcs and have a know to turn it *on* rather like profiled libs. Stephen -- The views expressed above are not those of PGS Tensor. We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.Robert Wilensky, University of California To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
John R. LoVerso wrote: Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. By that logic, you'd also have to add a Pascal compiler to the base system. Does gcc has a Pascal? :-) I think we have a Pascal doc under share. Neither makes much sense when they can both be ports (or packages) easily addable at install or compile time by the small % of the FreeBSD population that will actually use them. You are taking for granted the easyness. g77 is part of egcs. -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) d...@newsguy.com d...@freebsd.org nothing better than the ability to perform cunning linguistics To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 11:28:52AM -0500, Glenn Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 03:52:58PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote:
I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base
system was:
1. Needed for 'make world';
2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running;
3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel ;), or
4. Can't be effectively built outside of /usr/src.
If {g77|f77} can be built as a port, using the system EGCS, then to
port's it goes. Otherwise why don't we include the Top 20 ports, or
maybe the Top 25, or...
First off, g77 is not your typical port. The build of g77 depends on
having the source to gcc on your system. The last time I checked,
installing the source was optional. The reason the current port of g77
is marked broken is because of this.
See (4) above. Adding it to /usr/src, with a NO_FORTRAN option, would
get my vote.
Future: Now it may be true that newer versions of g77 may not build
against whatever version of egcs we have but at least we would be
guaranteed of having a functional Fortran compiler.
lang/g77-devel? Depends on lang/egcs-devel?
Many people don't seem to understand that FreeBSD can be used for
workstations as well as servers and Fortran is *essential* on a
scientific/engineering workstation. I don't doubt that there are more
people using FreeBSD as a server but that doesn't mean that workstation
users should be denied an essential tool because it takes up a few
hundred kilobytes.
I'm a civil engineer, specialising in data analysis...
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
| I could be anything I wanted to, but one things true
--+-- Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna hold the world in my hand
|Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna build a promised land
|But that's, that's all right, OK with me... -Audio Adrenaline
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Hi, On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 11:19:21PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used programs are only available through ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. :-) Invoking: 6. Whoever brings patches wins. :) -Jeremy -- | I could be anything I wanted to, but one things true --+-- Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna hold the world in my hand |Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna build a promised land |But that's, that's all right, OK with me... -Audio Adrenaline To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Does gcc has a Pascal? :-) Actually, yes. It's not a part of it yet, but drops in and builds easily with gcc-2.8.1, and with very little extra work for egcs. Check out http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/. Unlike Modula-3 and Gnat, they wrote the front-end in C, so it's a whole lot easier to port. It drops into a p subdir much like the Fortran front-end and includes a bunch of tests. It's a pretty nice dialect too - mostly compatible with Borland's Pascal with object extensions. I personally don't need Fortran or Objective-C, but could use C, C++, gjc (the new Java compiler), and gpc. I'm used to building my own compilers and cross-compilers, so it's no big deal for me either way. -- Parag Patel To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Jeremy Lea wrote: Hi, On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 11:19:21PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used programs are only available through ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. :-) Invoking: 6. Whoever brings patches wins. Doesn't apply for getting something *removed* from the tree. I've had *patches* and *ports* for f2c and f77 sitting around for at least 2 months. Search the mailing list. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 11:19:21PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used programs are only available through ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. :-) Invoking: 6. Whoever brings patches wins. Doesn't apply for getting something *removed* from the tree. I've had *patches* and *ports* for f2c and f77 sitting around for at least 2 months. Search the mailing list. I offered to do the commit work, but Jordan posted that removing Fortran from the base system wasn't something he considered acceptable, and I didn't feel like fighting him. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Jeremy wrote: 6. Whoever brings patches wins. Steve wrote: Doesn't apply for getting something *removed* from the tree. I've had *patches* and *ports* for f2c and f77 sitting around for at least 2 months. Search the mailing list. Nate's comment: I offered to do the commit work, but Jordan posted that removing Fortran from the base system wasn't something he considered acceptable, and I didn't feel like fighting him. Yes, I know you offered, and I did not mean to imply any negative critism. My comments were meant to convey that it takes more than having patches. Once something gets into the base tree, it suddenly gains a large amount of inertia to stay. If I recall, Jordan's position was to maintain the status quo until some decision on importing egcs was made. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. I should have posted this yesterday... but I had hoped to just get it done. There has been suffient YES response to keep Fortran in the base system. As someone posted to the point: g77 will add very little additional size and compile time over the bits of EGCS we are already using. -- -- David(obr...@nuxi.com -or- obr...@freebsd.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Yeah, I'm serious, I would really like gcj+libgcj, to get java stuff compiled (non portably) into binaries on FreeBSD. 1. I agree in principle. 2. I'd sort of like to see a second release of this, at least, before we start talking seriously of bringing it into -current. I predict a rapidly changing Doppler on this target. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Joe Abley wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 03:16:41AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com writes:
I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base
system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77
to the base system this weekend.
I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of
four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that?
If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if
it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off.
Oh good lord, not again.
I have to agree here...I personally know noone that actually uses
Fortran...having it as an option to turn off would be nice...one less
thing to compile on a buildworld...
I personally liked the whole ports concept...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scra...@hub.org secondary: scra...@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Brian Handy wrote:
On 9 Apr 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
[4 people said YES! Add g77!]
I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of
four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that?
Well, statistically speaking, that's a bunch of ayes and no noes.
Lots of things happen via implicit acceptance. (I was one of the people
who spoke up in favor of this after David mentioned this.)
If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if
it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off.
This doesn't seem unreasonable. (I also really like Chuck's idea of
adding gcj in the same light.)
Geez, and I used to think it was only the commercial OSs that had a
problem with bloat and creeping featurisms ... :( Chuck's idea makes more
sense...how many programs does the average system run that needs a fortran
compiler? *raised eyebrow*
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scra...@hub.org secondary: scra...@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 10:37:55AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Geez, and I used to think it was only the commercial OSs that had a
problem with bloat and creeping featurisms ... :( Chuck's idea makes more
sense...how many programs does the average system run that needs a fortran
compiler? *raised eyebrow*
I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base
system was:
1. Needed for 'make world';
2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running;
3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel ;), or
4. Can't be effectively built outside of /usr/src.
If {g77|f77} can be built as a port, using the system EGCS, then to
port's it goes. Otherwise why don't we include the Top 20 ports, or
maybe the Top 25, or...
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
| I could be anything I wanted to, but one things true
--+-- Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna hold the world in my hand
|Never gonna be as big as Jesus, never gonna build a promised land
|But that's, that's all right, OK with me... -Audio Adrenaline
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Brian Handy wrote: On 9 Apr 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: [4 people said YES! Add g77!] I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that? Well, statistically speaking, that's a bunch of ayes and no noes. Lots of things happen via implicit acceptance. (I was one of the people who spoke up in favor of this after David mentioned this.) If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off. This doesn't seem unreasonable. (I also really like Chuck's idea of adding gcj in the same light.) Geez, and I used to think it was only the commercial OSs that had a problem with bloat and creeping featurisms ... :( Chuck's idea makes more sense...how many programs does the average system run that needs a fortran compiler? *raised eyebrow* Personally, I'm not sure g77 is needed, but let me play devil's advocate here and turn your question around: How many programs does the average system not run because the system doesn't have a FORTRAN compiler? That seems to be a more pertinent question... and - a good bit more difficult to answer. - Dave Rivers - (My personal preference is to put it in there, with an option to disable it in make world. ) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
[cc trimmed to avoid cross-posting] Jeremy Lea wrote: I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base system was: 1. Needed for 'make world'; 2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running; 3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel ;), or 4. Can't be effectively built outside of /usr/src. Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used programs are only available through ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. :-) -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) d...@newsguy.com d...@freebsd.org nothing better than the ability to perform cunning linguistics To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote: [g77 in the source tree] I have to agree here...I personally know noone that actually uses Fortran...having it as an option to turn off would be nice...one less thing to compile on a buildworld... I know *lots* of people that use FORTRAN. That aside, I think I'd be satisfied with a port. Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. By that logic, you'd also have to add a Pascal compiler to the base system. Neither makes much sense when they can both be ports (or packages) easily addable at install or compile time by the small % of the FreeBSD population that will actually use them. John BSD me: together since 1983 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base
system was:
1. Needed for 'make world';
2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running;
3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel ;), or
4. Can't be effectively built outside of /usr/src.
If {g77|f77} can be built as a port, using the system EGCS, then to
port's it goes. Otherwise why don't we include the Top 20 ports, or
maybe the Top 25, or...
The criteria for adding something to the base system is different
than the criteria for removing something from it. In both cases,
it requires compelling reasons to change the status quo.
Replacing an existing component is somewhat easier, particularly
if backwards compatability is retained. I may be mistaken, but I
believe the current discussion is whether or not to replace f77
with g77.
-Pat
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
David O'Brien wrote:
Speaking of ports, I have a working port of f2c and a new
f77(1) wrapper sitting on my machine.
I guess naming is going to get sticky here... if f2c has `f77', then *if*
I put egcs/g77 in the main tree, do I install it as `g77' or `f77'?
The Egcs port installs it as `g77'... and what if someone makes some port
of an updated g77?
I would expect that you'll want to have a symlink from f77 to
g77 in /usr/bin. If g77 includes a man page, you'll also want
a symlink from f77.1 to g77.1.
In the Makefile for the port of my f77 wrapper I have:
do-install:
${INSTALL_PROGRAM} ${WRKSRC}/f77 ${PREFIX}/bin
${INSTALL_MAN} ${WRKSRC}/f77.1 ${PREFIX}/man/man1
This could be changed to:
do-install:
${INSTALL_PROGRAM} ${WRKSRC}/f77 ${PREFIX}/bin/${F77NAME}
${INSTALL_MAN} ${WRKSRC}/f77.1 ${PREFIX}/man/man1/${F77NAME}.1
where F77NAME would default to fc. Why fc? Because, f2c provides
an old Bourne shell script of the same name.
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Thomas David Rivers wrote: Geez, and I used to think it was only the commercial OSs that had a problem with bloat and creeping featurisms ... :( Chuck's idea makes more sense...how many programs does the average system run that needs a fortran compiler? *raised eyebrow* Personally, I'm not sure g77 is needed, but let me play devil's advocate here and turn your question around: How many programs does the average system not run because the system doesn't have a FORTRAN compiler? That seems to be a more pertinent question... and - a good bit more difficult to answer. Not as hard as all that. Just go about compiling from ports/math, and notice how many programs use f2c. Some also from graphics, and from others. Especially when you consider the low cost in terms of source size and executeable size, getting rid of fortran, or not allowing the upgraded fortran, it just doesn't make sense. We have NO_SENDMAIL now as a precedent, we just need NO_FORTRAN and NO_GCJ. This is very, very doable, and can only make FreeBSD look better. OTOH, as Jordan pointed out, maybe we need a *little* more experience with gcj, but fortran, it's ready *now*. +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 03:52:58PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 10:37:55AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Geez, and I used to think it was only the commercial OSs that had a
problem with bloat and creeping featurisms ... :( Chuck's idea makes more
sense...how many programs does the average system run that needs a fortran
compiler? *raised eyebrow*
I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base
system was:
1. Needed for 'make world';
2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running;
3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel ;), or
4. Can't be effectively built outside of /usr/src.
If {g77|f77} can be built as a port, using the system EGCS, then to
port's it goes. Otherwise why don't we include the Top 20 ports, or
maybe the Top 25, or...
Regards,
-Jeremy
First off, g77 is not your typical port. The build of g77 depends on
having the source to gcc on your system. The last time I checked,
installing the source was optional. The reason the current port of g77
is marked broken is because of this.
History: Newer versions of g77 cannot be built against gcc 2.7.2 and
older versions that can be built against gcc 2.7.2 don't work with
FreeBSD. This is because the FreeBSD gcc 2.7.2 was hacked too far away
from what g77 was developed for.
I would expect to see the same type of scenario arise with egcs as the
FreeBSD version becomes significantly changed from stock egcs. David has
already said that ports/egcs != src/contrib/egcs.
Future: Now it may be true that newer versions of g77 may not build
against whatever version of egcs we have but at least we would be
guaranteed of having a functional Fortran compiler.
Many people don't seem to understand that FreeBSD can be used for
workstations as well as servers and Fortran is *essential* on a
scientific/engineering workstation. I don't doubt that there are more
people using FreeBSD as a server but that doesn't mean that workstation
users should be denied an essential tool because it takes up a few
hundred kilobytes. I would predict that with SGI's entry into the NT
market you will see more people looking at Unix on Intel to replace
their aging SGI Irix boxes. It would be a shame for them to choose
Linux over FreeBSD because Linux can compile their Fortran programs and
FreeBSD cannot.
--
Glenn Johnson
Technician
USDA, ARS, SRRC
New Orleans, LA
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 p...@phoenix.volant.org wrote:
I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base
system was:
1. Needed for 'make world';
2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running;
3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel ;), or
4. Can't be effectively built outside of /usr/src.
If {g77|f77} can be built as a port, using the system EGCS, then to
port's it goes. Otherwise why don't we include the Top 20 ports, or
maybe the Top 25, or...
The criteria for adding something to the base system is different
than the criteria for removing something from it. In both cases,
it requires compelling reasons to change the status quo.
Replacing an existing component is somewhat easier, particularly
if backwards compatability is retained. I may be mistaken, but I
believe the current discussion is whether or not to replace f77
with g77.
Didn't we just have this discussion a few months ago???
just put it in the tree already ;)
rob
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used programs are only available through ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. :-) Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away...The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would require all the ports which are currently included. 'Server setup' port wouldn't have any Client stuff. 'Desktop' could install a 'nicer' windomanager (kde? gnome?) for teh user, and be pre-setup to start xdm, etc. The installer can currently install packages, so reworking those 'system install options' to fit simpler naming convention than 'Kernel Hacker, X user, X+ source, etc.' may be appropriate. I know.. lots of talk and no action. Oh well... my thoughts :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Rod Taylor wrote: Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used programs are only available through ports, a lot of obscure and obsolete stuff remains on our tree. They are there because of 5. As long as 5 exists, Fortran belongs in the tree. If we ever get rid of 5, then it's time to get the knife to our tree... Or the axe, if the vikings decide to have the first cut. :-) Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away...The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would require all the ports which are currently included. 'Server setup' port wouldn't have any Client stuff. 'Desktop' could install a 'nicer' windomanager (kde? gnome?) for teh user, and be pre-setup to start xdm, etc. The installer can currently install packages, so reworking those 'system install options' to fit simpler naming convention than 'Kernel Hacker, X user, X+ source, etc.' may be appropriate. I know.. lots of talk and no action. Oh well... my thoughts :) well geeze Xwindows isnt in the base source tree anymore, what more do ya want ;) rob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away...The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would require all the ports which are currently included. 'Server setup' port wouldn't have any Client stuff. 'Desktop' could install a 'nicer' windomanager (kde? gnome?) for teh user, and be pre-setup to start xdm, etc. The installer can currently install packages, so reworking those 'system install options' to fit simpler naming convention than 'Kernel Hacker, X user, X+ source, etc.' may be appropriate. I know.. lots of talk and no action. Oh well... my thoughts :) well geeze Xwindows isnt in the base source tree anymore, what more do ya want ;) Anymore? It's never been there to begin with. +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away...The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would require all the ports which are currently included. 'Server setup' port wouldn't have any Client stuff. 'Desktop' could install a 'nicer' windomanager (kde? gnome?) for teh user, and be pre-setup to start xdm, etc. The installer can currently install packages, so reworking those 'system install options' to fit simpler naming convention than 'Kernel Hacker, X user, X+ source, etc.' may be appropriate. I know.. lots of talk and no action. Oh well... my thoughts :) well geeze Xwindows isnt in the base source tree anymore, what more do ya want ;) Anymore? It's never been there to begin with. perhaps i'm wrong but i woulda swore it was in /usr/src/contrib in 4.4lite2 at least rob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away...The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would require all the ports which are currently included. 'Server setup' port wouldn't have any Client stuff. 'Desktop' could install a 'nicer' windomanager (kde? gnome?) for teh user, and be pre-setup to start xdm, etc. The installer can currently install packages, so reworking those 'system install options' to fit simpler naming convention than 'Kernel Hacker, X user, X+ source, etc.' may be appropriate. I know.. lots of talk and no action. Oh well... my thoughts :) well geeze Xwindows isnt in the base source tree anymore, what more do ya want ;) Anymore? It's never been there to begin with. perhaps i'm wrong but i woulda swore it was in /usr/src/contrib in 4.4lite2 at least It's never ever been in any FreeBSD sources. I didn't take a look at the 4.4Lite2 sources before they were brought into FreeBSD, but it's not been any part of FreeBSD, of that I'm certain. rob +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, David O'Brien wrote: I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. Personally, yes, lets do it. In fact, I'd like to hear serious discussion, now that libgcj is available, of making gcj (a part of egcs) also get installed. Java is extremely popular, and libgcj is going to increase that a great deal. Yeah, I'm serious, I would really like gcj+libgcj, to get java stuff compiled (non portably) into binaries on FreeBSD. -- -- David(obr...@nuxi.com -or- obr...@freebsd.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 04:50:56PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. -- -- David(obr...@nuxi.com -or- obr...@freebsd.org) David, First off, great job on the egcs import. Maybe you have already counted me among the four, but if not, add me to the list. I would love to see g77 in the base system. Thanks. -- Glenn Johnson gljo...@bellsouth.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com writes: I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that? If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On 9 Apr 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com writes: I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that? If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off. If that gives me the option to bring in gcj and libgcj, then I think it's a GREAT idea. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 03:16:41AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com writes: I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that? If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off. Oh good lord, not again. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
* From: David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com * I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base * system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 * to the base system this weekend. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention I guess. What's wrong with it being a port? If the answer is it's very hard to separate just the g77 functionality into /usr/local, then count me as a yes. If it is some people want it in the base system, then count me as a no. -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
On 9 Apr 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: [4 people said YES! Add g77!] I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that? Well, statistically speaking, that's a bunch of ayes and no noes. Lots of things happen via implicit acceptance. (I was one of the people who spoke up in favor of this after David mentioned this.) If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off. This doesn't seem unreasonable. (I also really like Chuck's idea of adding gcj in the same light.) Happy trails, Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Satoshi - the Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: * From: David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com * I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base * system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 * to the base system this weekend. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention I guess. What's wrong with it being a port? If the answer is it's very hard to separate just the g77 functionality into /usr/local, then count me as a yes. If it is some people want it in the base system, then count me as a no. Speaking of ports, I have a working port of f2c and a new f77(1) wrapper sitting on my machine. The f2c port includes all of the FreeBSD changes to the f2c in usr/src. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com writes: I've only heard back from 4 folks about adding EGCS's g77 to the base system -- all 4 said yes. Unless I get more feedback, I will add g77 to the base system this weekend. I beg your pardon? You're adding g77 to the system because you know of four people who would find it useful? Where's the logic in that? Please add g77. That's five. Search the mail archive for the last round of Fortran discussion. If you do add it to the base system, make it optional. I don't care if it defaults to on, as long as I have the option to turn it off. A knob would be fine, but you're saving yourself 100k or so of disk space and 5 minutes during make world. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
