Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:06:51 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: bs_13943_34262@adimus.de (Benedikt Stockebrand), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fortran in the base system (was Re: sysinstall) Message-ID: <199812162006.NAA24553@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199812161952.LAA75064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <sa7af0ol69i.fsf@adimus.de> <199812161952.LAA75064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> A Fortran compiler has been part of the base system since FreeBSD 1.1.5. Because there was no easy way of breaking it out in the old days. > > I'm not sure if you don't understand the distinction between the base > > system and the ports collection or don't want to accept the fact that > > fortran isn't considered "basic" functionality these days anymore. > > I fully understand the difference. I'm suggesting the replacement > of current inferior functionality with a superior solution. I think we should rip out the inferior solution and leave it out. However, taking functionality out of FreeBSD is harder than adding new functionality in. The existing code doesn't work well at all, and rather than bloat the tree with something that is rarely used, we should just live with the ability that it's easy to add Fortran to the base system as a package. > > All claimed advantages have absolutely nothing to do with the question > > of placing your fortran compiler in the base system instead of a port. > > There is already a Fortran compiler in the base system. I'd argue (heck, I am arguing. :) that it should be removed. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812162006.NAA24553>