From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EBD138247 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:40:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88E0CE0D64; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:40:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0DFAE0C9E for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:40:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (89.Red-81-36-183.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [81.36.183.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1232233F5BC for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1389516001.1141.42.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Default USE changes for fortran and mudflap? From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:40:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20140112092420.6222fb44@pomiot.lan> References: <20140112015347.5baf1bc0@caribou.gateway.pace.com> <20140112092420.6222fb44@pomiot.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 8f346897-aa15-47ad-97bd-eb6a5d3a260a X-Archives-Hash: efd8263a19aafc681b8ac6fe7e8dbde3 El dom, 12-01-2014 a las 09:24 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: > Dnia 2014-01-12, o godz. 01:53:47 > Ryan Hill napisał(a): > > > fortran: > > Do we want to keep enabling fortran by default? The majority of users will > > never get the urge to install a fortran package, and the fortran eclass handles > > those that do. I think it should be treated as all the other optional > > languages and disabled by default, but I'd like to know if there are other > > opinions. > > Well, I'd say we should work on making 'other languages' buildable > without rebuilding the whole giant gcc stack. Especially that > the stacked build makes it impossible to use distcc at least partially. > I was also wondering about what we prefer if Michal's suggestion is not possible: - Build support for other langs by default -> More time when we need to emerge gcc or update it but less time as we don't need to rebuild for that (I remember when I needed to build pdftk and needed to wait for a gcc rebuild giving gcj support) - Build support for other langs disabled by default -> Well, does it save so much time to compensate the rebuilds we would need to do in the future when we need to emerge some package some time?