Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:32:00 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Albrecht <bruce@zuhause.mn.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: removing f2c from base distribution Message-ID: <13999.55856.37120.423504@zuhause.zuhause.mn.org> In-Reply-To: <199901271623.LAA07822@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <199901270504.WAA18271@mt.sri.com> <199901270555.VAA09197@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <19990126220644.A7037@relay.nuxi.com> <199901270623.IAA01480@greenpeace.grondar.za> <36AEFC21.A9B32C67@newsguy.com> <199901271623.LAA07822@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman writes: > <<On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:33 +0900, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> said: > > > > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran > > be different? > > Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler. So FreeBSD v12.4, released in 2026, had better include a FORTRAN compiler, because Berkely Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler? I'm sure there are a fair number of ways FreeBSD has diverged from the way Berkeley Unix has always done things (for example, to conform to POSIX), is that such a bad thing? If it's a port, and sysinstall gives the user an option to install a FORTRAN compiler, is that so radically different from Berkeley Unix /always/ including a FORTRAN compiler? Is it wrong to move things that most people installing FreeBSD don't use out of the core and into ports? I've never used the FreeBSD FORTRAN compiler, but I do use something that a lot of other people single out as being in this category (uucp), but if uucp were to move to the ports, I'd still use it and FreeBSD. Are there any programs in the base sources for FreeBSD that are written in FORTRAN? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13999.55856.37120.423504>