From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PQiQt-0002Dd-5e for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:29:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B545E0853; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58167E0853 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from drakkar.localnet (unknown [134.206.229.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: george) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B58F1B414B for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:28:37 +0000 (UTC) From: George Shapovalov Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] Gentoo Science next meeting agenda - 5) fortran Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:28:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r3; KDE/4.5.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <4CFB8BCC.3070106@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4CFB8BCC.3070106@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201012091628.34263.george@gentoo.org> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: afb390f5-4c5a-4891-a711-efabd76e5f85 X-Archives-Hash: 20dcd033788c880d224c1ef8d2d6e035 Looks like due to google remapping email headers and some changes in gentoo infra my reply did not get to the list. So, here it goes again, now avoiding gmail :). BTW, there were a few posts on this topic in the linked thread on Donnie's blog since my last post attempt. On Sunday 05 December 2010 13:55:40 Kacper Kowalik wrote: > Again, for the reference and starting point for the discussion > Donnie's blog post: > http://bit.ly/dLwdFe Very interesting - that this point started coming up in multiple places lately. I guess "the time has come" finally. My interest/"involvement" here is that Ada has been implementing such a system for many years now (perhaps the first such miltiABI class in the tree), therefore, if there some technical issues that can be referenced: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/prog_lang/ada/dev_reference.xml (unfortunately incomplete, but I should have put principal points there before "dropping it") and discussed. The implementattion is somewhat along the lines of "2." point in thatDonnie's post. In fact, 2 and 3 follow the same principle, the difference is only where the multi-build control code resides - in the ebuild or external script. The Ada implementation places it in the "standard" locations: an eclass for building compilers, an eclass for taking care of libs and eselect module "to rule them all". There is even an option of selecting "primary" profiles - the ones for which libs will be built, and having "experimental" - just for play compilers. Therefore I would suggest to interested people to look at the code/contact me, etc.. I think we can all benefit from discussing this topic. Overal though, I would very much like to push for the standard "in portage" treatment of multiple ABIs - at leas for PM providing some necessary "core"functionality. However this is still not out of the design phase, as I understand.. George