Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#394 - gcc needs more languages
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Monday, 19 January 2004, 07:42 GMT
Last edited by Judd Vinet (judd) - Tuesday, 20 January 2004, 06:46 GMT
Opened by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Monday, 19 January 2004, 07:42 GMT
Last edited by Judd Vinet (judd) - Tuesday, 20 January 2004, 06:46 GMT
|
Detailsthere is need for at least fortran for the gcc in arch
add f77 to have a dependency for packages that need fortran: --enable-languages=c,c++,f77,objc |
This task depends upon
If enough people want a fortran compiler, I will add it. Otherwise, you'll have to rebuild gcc yourself.
this request is mainly because of compatibility: a lot of scientific- sound- math- computing-apps/libs need fortran as dependency
either as depends=() or makedepends=() or both
so all these pkgs cannot be used with arch as long as it do not have f77 in it (g95 is really alpha, so mostly nothing works as it should)
i for myself have gcc 3.3.2 with f77 on my machine at the uni (archlinux with my own gcc pkg that "provides" gcc "conflicts" gcc), but it's mostly useless, because when i try pkgs compiled with fortran on this machine, they simply do not work on the other using gcc from stock (or give strange behaviour)
( e.g. http://www.r-project.org/ do not run on stock-arch :-( )
what reason is there not to include f77? if there is some problem with size of pkg or something else, then i understand fully that it's not so good including
I'll look at splitting up gcc into separate packages, if it's not too much of a hassle.
If users need modified gcc packages, we could possibly add a "gcc-all" package to extra that contains all the available compilers.