[gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

I just did my updates and ran into this:

* Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
  * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib 
policykit userland_GNU
  * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox

  * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
  * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
  * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
  * fortran dialects are support.

  * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
  *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
  *
  * Call stack:
  *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
  *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
  * The specific snippet of code:
  *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
  *
  * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info 
=sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
  * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv 
=sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
  * The complete build log is located at 
'/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'.
  * The ebuild environment file is located at 
'/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
  * S: 
'/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'

 >>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:

 >>>  
'/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'
root@fireball / #

This is my gcc info:

[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) nls 
nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran 
-gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp 
-objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla"

So, does everyone need to turn on the fortran USE flag so that they 
don't break anything?   May I also add, the USE flag description is 
worth about as much as a screen door on a submarine.

fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)

That doesn't tell me very much.

Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag 
fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of 
stuff.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Matthew Finkel]

On 06/21/11 23:55, Dale wrote:
> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>
> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>  * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
> policykit userland_GNU
>  * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox
>
>  * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>  * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>  * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>  * fortran dialects are support.
>
>  * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
>  *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
>  *
>  * Call stack:
>  *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
>  *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
>  * The specific snippet of code:
>  *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
>  *
>  * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
>  * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
>  * The complete build log is located at
> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'.
>  * The ebuild environment file is located at
> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
>  * S:
> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'
>
> >>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:
>
> >>> 
> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'
> root@fireball / #
>
> This is my gcc info:
>
> [ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) nls
> nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran
> -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp
> -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla"
>
> So, does everyone need to turn on the fortran USE flag so that they
> don't break anything?   May I also add, the USE flag description is
> worth about as much as a screen door on a submarine.
>
> fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>
> That doesn't tell me very much.
>
> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch
> of stuff.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
If I had to guess, I'd say =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 requires
fortran (ebuild depends on it) and you don't have another fortran
compiler installed.

Could be wrong though.

- Matt

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3484 bytes --]

On 22/06/11 06:31, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> On 06/21/11 23:55, Dale wrote:
>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>
>> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>>  * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
>> policykit userland_GNU
>>  * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox
>>
>>  * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>>  * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>>  * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>>  * fortran dialects are support.
>>
>>  * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
>>  *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
>>  *
>>  * Call stack:
>>  *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
>>  *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
>>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
>>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
>>  * The specific snippet of code:
>>  *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
>>  *
>>  * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
>> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
>>  * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
>> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
>>  * The complete build log is located at
>> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'.
>>  * The ebuild environment file is located at
>> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
>>  * S:
>> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'
>>
>>>>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:
>>
>>>>>
>> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> This is my gcc info:
>>
>> [ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) nls
>> nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran
>> -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp
>> -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla"
>>
>> So, does everyone need to turn on the fortran USE flag so that they
>> don't break anything?   May I also add, the USE flag description is
>> worth about as much as a screen door on a submarine.
>>
>> fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>>
>> That doesn't tell me very much.
>>
>> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch
>> of stuff.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
> If I had to guess, I'd say =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 requires
> fortran (ebuild depends on it) and you don't have another fortran
> compiler installed.
> 
> Could be wrong though.
> 
> - Matt
> 

That's right,

blas-reference is written in fortran.

We restructured the dependency chain for fortran support, which includes
a compile test now. The failure can be seen above.

The Problem was in short, USE=fortran was enabled by default for linux
arches, but people tend to disable it. Depending on gcc[fortran] doesn't
work completely as gcc:4.4[fortran] and gcc:4.5[-fortran] with gcc-4.5
select can be installed, which would full fill the dependency but
nevertheless doesn't give a working compiler.

So now packages depend on virtual/fortran and use an eclass to check for
a working compiler. So if you see this message, this means you somehow
worked around gcc[fortran].


justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3867 bytes --]

On 22/06/11 07:25, justin wrote:
> On 22/06/11 06:31, Matthew Finkel wrote:
>> On 06/21/11 23:55, Dale wrote:
>>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>>
>>> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>>>  * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
>>> policykit userland_GNU
>>>  * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox
>>>
>>>  * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>>>  * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>>>  * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>>>  * fortran dialects are support.
>>>
>>>  * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
>>>  *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
>>>  *
>>>  * Call stack:
>>>  *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
>>>  *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
>>>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
>>>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
>>>  * The specific snippet of code:
>>>  *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
>>>  *
>>>  * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
>>> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
>>>  * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
>>> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
>>>  * The complete build log is located at
>>> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'.
>>>  * The ebuild environment file is located at
>>> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
>>>  * S:
>>> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'
>>>
>>>>>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-034357.log'
>>> root@fireball / #
>>>
>>> This is my gcc info:
>>>
>>> [ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) nls
>>> nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran
>>> -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp
>>> -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla"
>>>
>>> So, does everyone need to turn on the fortran USE flag so that they
>>> don't break anything?   May I also add, the USE flag description is
>>> worth about as much as a screen door on a submarine.
>>>
>>> fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>>>
>>> That doesn't tell me very much.
>>>
>>> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>>> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch
>>> of stuff.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-)
>>>
>> If I had to guess, I'd say =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 requires
>> fortran (ebuild depends on it) and you don't have another fortran
>> compiler installed.
>>
>> Could be wrong though.
>>
>> - Matt
>>
> 
> That's right,
> 
> blas-reference is written in fortran.
> 
> We restructured the dependency chain for fortran support, which includes
> a compile test now. The failure can be seen above.
> 
> The Problem was in short, USE=fortran was enabled by default for linux
> arches, but people tend to disable it. Depending on gcc[fortran] doesn't
> work completely as gcc:4.4[fortran] and gcc:4.5[-fortran] with gcc-4.5
> select can be installed, which would full fill the dependency but
> nevertheless doesn't give a working compiler.
> 
> So now packages depend on virtual/fortran and use an eclass to check for
> a working compiler. So if you see this message, this means you somehow
> worked around gcc[fortran].
> 
> 
> justin
> 

One little note,

if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry

sys-devel/gcc -fortran

in

your /etc/portage/package.use

Just remove that.

justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Thanasis]

on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:

> One little note,
> 
> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
> 
> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
> 
> in
> 
> your /etc/portage/package.use
> 
> Just remove that.
> 

I didn't have fortran in my USE flags at all, yet portage requested to
install dev-lang/ifc

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 609 bytes --]

On 22/06/11 08:29, Thanasis wrote:
> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
> 
>> One little note,
>>
>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>
>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>
>> in
>>
>> your /etc/portage/package.use
>>
>> Just remove that.
>>
> 
> I didn't have fortran in my USE flags at all, yet portage requested to
> install dev-lang/ifc

This is a strange artifact. All my test show that gcc[fortran] should be
emerged. Does it work if you manually emerge gcc with USE=fortran?

justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

On 22/06/11 08:33, justin wrote:
> On 22/06/11 08:29, Thanasis wrote:
>> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>>
>>> One little note,
>>>
>>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>>
>>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>> your /etc/portage/package.use
>>>
>>> Just remove that.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't have fortran in my USE flags at all, yet portage requested to
>> install dev-lang/ifc
> 
> This is a strange artifact. All my test show that gcc[fortran] should be
> emerged. Does it work if you manually emerge gcc with USE=fortran?
> 
> justin
> 


I found the culprit. It should be fixed now, so please resync later
today and everything is normal again.

justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[walt]

On 06/22/2011 12:13 AM, justin wrote:
 
> I found the culprit. It should be fixed now, so please resync later
> today and everything is normal again.
> 
> justin

Hi justin.  Just want to say thanks for being a gentoo dev, and even
bigger thanks for taking time to check in with us here in the gentoo
lusers list.  It's a treat for us to have an answer from someone who's
not just guessing like the rest of us :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

walt wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 12:13 AM, justin wrote:
>
>    
>> I found the culprit. It should be fixed now, so please resync later
>> today and everything is normal again.
>>
>> justin
>>      
> Hi justin.  Just want to say thanks for being a gentoo dev, and even
> bigger thanks for taking time to check in with us here in the gentoo
> lusers list.  It's a treat for us to have an answer from someone who's
> not just guessing like the rest of us :)
>
>    

+1.5  I just really agree with that.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

On 6/23/11 12:11 AM, walt wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 12:13 AM, justin wrote:
>  
>> I found the culprit. It should be fixed now, so please resync later
>> today and everything is normal again.
>>
>> justin
> 
> Hi justin.  Just want to say thanks for being a gentoo dev, and even
> bigger thanks for taking time to check in with us here in the gentoo
> lusers list.  It's a treat for us to have an answer from someone who's
> not just guessing like the rest of us :)
> 
> 
> 

Thanks Walt,

the user list is a valuable source to get a feeling what is going on.
And to catch bugs and breakages quickly. When changing things, it is not
always possible to foresee everything and thus things like this fortran
breakage occur. So it is always good to follow what happens to the
broader audience.

In the end of the day we are all user,

justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 267 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Thanasis]

on 06/22/2011 09:33 AM justin wrote the following:
> On 22/06/11 08:29, Thanasis wrote:
>> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>>
>>> One little note,
>>>
>>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>>
>>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>> your /etc/portage/package.use
>>>
>>> Just remove that.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't have fortran in my USE flags at all, yet portage requested to
>> install dev-lang/ifc
> 
> This is a strange artifact. All my test show that gcc[fortran] should be
> emerged. Does it work if you manually emerge gcc with USE=fortran?
> 
Yes, I have added fortran to /etc/make.conf (global) USE flags and then
portage didn't ask for dev-lang/ifc.
The profile is default/linux/x86/10.0 and it is chrooted.

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Matthew Finkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On 06/22/11 02:29, Thanasis wrote:
> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>
>> One little note,
>>
>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>
>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>
>> in
>>
>> your /etc/portage/package.use
>>
>> Just remove that.
>>
>
> I didn't have fortran in my USE flags at all, yet portage requested to
> install dev-lang/ifc

Was ifc pulled in as a dependency for another package?


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1071 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Thanasis]

on 06/22/2011 10:32 AM Matthew Finkel wrote the following:
> On 06/22/11 02:29, Thanasis wrote:
>> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>>
>>> One little note,
>>>
>>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>>
>>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>> your /etc/portage/package.use
>>>
>>> Just remove that.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't have fortran in my USE flags at all, yet portage requested to
>> install dev-lang/ifc
> 
> Was ifc pulled in as a dependency for another package?
> 

Probably not directly, but as as a fortran requirement.

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Thanasis]

on 06/22/2011 06:55 AM Dale wrote the following:
> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> stuff.

I noticed that if you don't add fortran to your USE flags and something
needs fortran, unless your profile is 64bit no-multilib, portage chooses
to install dev-lang/ifc, for which it downloads a huge (272MB) tgz file
(l_cprof_p_11.1.072_ia32.tgz) containing rpms like:

l_cprof_p_11.1.072_ia32/rpm/intel-cpromklib072-11.1-1.i486.rpm
l_cprof_p_11.1.072_ia32/rpm/intel-cprof072-11.1-1.i486.rpm
l_cprof_p_11.1.072_ia32/rpm/intel-cpromkl072-11.1-1.noarch.rpm
13:51
l_cprof_p_11.1.072_ia32/rpm/intel-cproidb072-11.1-1.i486.rpm
l_cprof_p_11.1.072_ia32/rpm/intel-cprolib072-11.1-1.i486.rpm
...

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/22/2011 06:55 AM, Dale wrote:
> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>
> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
> * USE: amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib policykit
> userland_GNU
> * FEATURES: preserve-libs sandbox
>
> * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
> * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
> * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
> * fortran dialects are support.
>[...]
>
> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> stuff.

Uninstall sci-libs/blas-reference I guess.  And probably whatever 
depends on it.  Please do an "emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference" and 
post the output so we can see what's pulling it as a dep on your system.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 06:55 AM, Dale wrote:
>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>
>> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>> * USE: amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib policykit
>> userland_GNU
>> * FEATURES: preserve-libs sandbox
>>
>> * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>> * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>> * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>> * fortran dialects are support.
>> [...]
>>
>> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
>> stuff.
>
> Uninstall sci-libs/blas-reference I guess.  And probably whatever 
> depends on it.  Please do an "emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference" 
> and post the output so we can see what's pulling it as a dep on your 
> system.
>

Here is the output:

root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference

Calculating dependencies... done!
   sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 pulled in by:
     virtual/blas-1.0

 >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean
Packages installed:   994
Packages in world:    119
Packages in system:   51
Required packages:    994
Number to remove:     0
root@fireball / #

Two things.  I read about this on -dev but didn't realize it was going 
to affect me until I saw the message.  After I added fortran to my USE 
line in make.conf, it only rebuilt gcc then revdep-rebuild rebuilt 
dev-lang/ifc-10.0.026-r1.  Everything appears to be clean now.

To think people wonder why my USE line is so big.  I keep having to add 
stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell 
off the reservation and needs to be removed. < sighs >  Over the years, 
it adds up.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:18:49 -0500, Dale wrote:

> To think people wonder why my USE line is so big.  I keep having to add 
> stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell 
> off the reservation and needs to be removed. < sighs >  Over the years, 
> it adds up.

That's because those are global flags. If you set package-specific flags
in /etc/portage/package.use, eix-test-obsolete will tell you when entries
can be removed.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Unsupported service (adj): Broken (see Demon)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:18:49 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> To think people wonder why my USE line is so big.  I keep having to add
>> stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell
>> off the reservation and needs to be removed.<  sighs>   Over the years,
>> it adds up.
>>      
> That's because those are global flags. If you set package-specific flags
> in /etc/portage/package.use, eix-test-obsolete will tell you when entries
> can be removed.
>
>    

But when something new comes out, I usually want to add it for all the 
packages.  I have a few things listed in package.use but I don't want to 
clutter the crap out of it and then have two files that needs cleaning.  
I have used the eix-test before but it seems to have waaaay to much 
output and it seems something changed and it makes less sense to me 
now.  Maybe I need to give it another whirl and check into some output 
options.

It'll have to wait until after garden time tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:18:49 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> To think people wonder why my USE line is so big.  I keep having to add
>>> stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell
>>> off the reservation and needs to be removed.<  sighs>   Over the years,
>>> it adds up.
>>>
>>
>> That's because those are global flags. If you set package-specific flags
>> in /etc/portage/package.use, eix-test-obsolete will tell you when entries
>> can be removed.
>>
>>
>
> But when something new comes out, I usually want to add it for all the
> packages.  I have a few things listed in package.use but I don't want to
> clutter the crap out of it and then have two files that needs cleaning.  I
> have used the eix-test before but it seems to have waaaay to much output and
> it seems something changed and it makes less sense to me now.  Maybe I need
> to give it another whirl and check into some output options.
>
> It'll have to wait until after garden time tho.
>
> Dale

If eix-test-obsolete is outputting waaaay too much there there's an
opportunity there for you to clean things up, if not today then over
time. Once you get it right it outputs almost nothing.

Note that I run stable and then use ~amd64 in package.keywords rather
liberally where I currently have 20-30 testing packages selected.

I haven't cleaned anything up in months.

- Mark

c2stable ~ # eix-test-obsolete -d

No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.keywords.
No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.
No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.mask.
No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask.
No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.use.
No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.env.
No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags.
The names of all installed packages are in the database.


Redundant in /etc/portage/package.{,accept_}keywords:

... considered as REDUNDANT_IF_STRANGE
[I] sys-apps/portage (2.2.0_alpha41@06/15/2011): Portage is the
package management and distribution system for Gentoo

No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.{,accept_}keywords
No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.mask
No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.mask
No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask
No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask
No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.use
No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.use
No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.env
No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.env
No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags
No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags

Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
[D] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources (2.6.38-r1(2.6.38-r1)@03/30/2011
2.6.38-r3(2.6.38-r3)@04/24/2011 2.6.38-r4(2.6.38-r4)@05/04/2011
2.6.38-r5(2.6.38-r5)@05/11/2011 2.6.39(2.6.39)@05/30/2011
2.6.39-r1(2.6.39-r1)@06/11/2011 -> 2.6.32-r24(2.6.32-r24)!b!s
2.6.32-r29(2.6.32-r29)!b!s (~)2.6.32-r30(2.6.32-r30)!b!s
(~)2.6.32-r31(2.6.32-r31)!b!s 2.6.35-r15(2.6.35-r15)!b!s
2.6.36-r8(2.6.36-r8)!b!s (~)2.6.37-r3(2.6.37-r3)!b!s
2.6.37-r4(2.6.37-r4)!b!s (~)2.6.37-r5(2.6.37-r5)!b!s
(~)2.6.37-r6(2.6.37-r6)!b!s (~)2.6.38-r4(2.6.38-r4)!b!s
(~)2.6.38-r5(2.6.38-r5)!b!s 2.6.38-r6(2.6.38-r6)!b!s
(~)2.6.38-r7(2.6.38-r7)!b!s (~)2.6.39(2.6.39)!b!s
(~)2.6.39-r1(2.6.39-r1)!b!s): Full sources including the Gentoo
patchset for the 2.6 kernel tree

c2stable ~ #

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> If eix-test-obsolete is outputting waaaay too much there there's an
> opportunity there for you to clean things up, if not today then over
> time. Once you get it right it outputs almost nothing.
>
> Note that I run stable and then use ~amd64 in package.keywords rather
> liberally where I currently have 20-30 testing packages selected.
>
> I haven't cleaned anything up in months.
>
> - Mark
>
> c2stable ~ # eix-test-obsolete -d
>
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.keywords.
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.mask.
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask.
> No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.use.
> No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.env.
> No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags.
> The names of all installed packages are in the database.
>
>
> Redundant in /etc/portage/package.{,accept_}keywords:
>
> ... considered as REDUNDANT_IF_STRANGE
> [I] sys-apps/portage (2.2.0_alpha41@06/15/2011): Portage is the
> package management and distribution system for Gentoo
>
> No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.{,accept_}keywords
> No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.mask
> No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.mask
> No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask
> No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask
> No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.use
> No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.use
> No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.env
> No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.env
> No  redundant  entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags
> No uninstalled entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags
>
> Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
> [D] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources (2.6.38-r1(2.6.38-r1)@03/30/2011
> 2.6.38-r3(2.6.38-r3)@04/24/2011 2.6.38-r4(2.6.38-r4)@05/04/2011
> 2.6.38-r5(2.6.38-r5)@05/11/2011 2.6.39(2.6.39)@05/30/2011
> 2.6.39-r1(2.6.39-r1)@06/11/2011 ->  2.6.32-r24(2.6.32-r24)!b!s
> 2.6.32-r29(2.6.32-r29)!b!s (~)2.6.32-r30(2.6.32-r30)!b!s
> (~)2.6.32-r31(2.6.32-r31)!b!s 2.6.35-r15(2.6.35-r15)!b!s
> 2.6.36-r8(2.6.36-r8)!b!s (~)2.6.37-r3(2.6.37-r3)!b!s
> 2.6.37-r4(2.6.37-r4)!b!s (~)2.6.37-r5(2.6.37-r5)!b!s
> (~)2.6.37-r6(2.6.37-r6)!b!s (~)2.6.38-r4(2.6.38-r4)!b!s
> (~)2.6.38-r5(2.6.38-r5)!b!s 2.6.38-r6(2.6.38-r6)!b!s
> (~)2.6.38-r7(2.6.38-r7)!b!s (~)2.6.39(2.6.39)!b!s
> (~)2.6.39-r1(2.6.39-r1)!b!s): Full sources including the Gentoo
> patchset for the 2.6 kernel tree
>
> c2stable ~ #
>
>    

Time is the problem right now.  I got about 50 mater plants, 15 
eggplants, about 100 pepper plants of different kinds, three rows of 
okra, two rows of peas, and just planted three rows of snap beans, 16 
hills of squash, 5 cucumber hills, 5 cantaloupe hills, and a few others 
that I forget.  Did I mention I have nutgrass?  I make rounds every day 
for that.  THAT is some work.  Since it just rained, it will be popping 
up real good now.  This next week will be so much fun. < roll eyes >

I did have a time that it returned nothing.  It took me several days to 
get there tho.  Right now, I don't see that happening.  What would be 
nice is if portage would print a little message when a USE flag goes 
away.  It does a good job of letting us know when one is missing.  It's 
half way there now.  lol

Short version since it is sooooooo long:

root@fireball / # eix-test-obsolete -d | grep Found
Found 19 matches.
Found 8 matches.
Found 41 matches.
Found 2 matches.
Found 28 matches.
Found 354 matches.
Found 4 matches.
Found 27 matches.
root@fireball / #

354 !!  That could take a while.  O_O   Maybe start on the small ones 
first.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:13:46AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote

> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.keywords.
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.mask.
> No non-matching entries in /etc/portage/package.unmask.
> No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.use.
> No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.env.
> No non-matching or empty entries in /etc/portage/package.cflags.

  While we're at it...
1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
"package.accept_keywords"?

2) what does "package.env" do?

3) does "package.cflags" specify package-specific cflags?  What about
cxxflags?

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 276 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:01:30 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
> "package.accept_keywords"?

The latter is the new name for the former.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Last words of a Windows user: = Why does that work now?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Stroller]

On 24 June 2011, at 01:14, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:01:30 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> 
>> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
>> "package.accept_keywords"?
> 
> The latter is the new name for the former.

So I can just `mv /etc/portage/package.keywords /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords` and nothing will break?

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 24 June 2011 12:56:48 Stroller did opine thusly:
> On 24 June 2011, at 01:14, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:01:30 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> >> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
> >> "package.accept_keywords"?
> > 
> > The latter is the new name for the former.
> 
> So I can just `mv /etc/portage/package.keywords
> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords` and nothing will break?
> 
> Stroller.

Yes.

man 5 portage


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:56:48 +0100, Stroller wrote:

> >> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
> >> "package.accept_keywords"?  
> > 
> > The latter is the new name for the former.  
> 
> So I can just
> `mv /etc/portage/package.keywords /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords`
> and nothing will break?

Yes, but don't ask me what happens if you have both files.

It's a more logical name, because it contains per-package overrides for
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, so it now follows the same naming convention as the
other package.* files.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

This is the day for firm decisions! Or is it?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:27:11 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > That's because those are global flags. If you set package-specific
> > flags in /etc/portage/package.use, eix-test-obsolete will tell you
> > when entries can be removed.

> But when something new comes out, I usually want to add it for all the 
> packages.  I have a few things listed in package.use but I don't want
> to clutter the crap out of it and then have two files that needs
> cleaning.  

Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to manage. All
of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "I can't configure
Slackware".

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:27:11 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>>> That's because those are global flags. If you set package-specific
>>> flags in /etc/portage/package.use, eix-test-obsolete will tell you
>>> when entries can be removed.
>>>        
>    
>> But when something new comes out, I usually want to add it for all the
>> packages.  I have a few things listed in package.use but I don't want
>> to clutter the crap out of it and then have two files that needs
>> cleaning.
>>      
> Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to manage. All
> of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.
>
>    

I have done that for package.keywords and unmask.  In ways it is easier 
but in ways, it is a nightmare.  If something is unmasked, I have to go 
find the file that unmasked it.  I have several since I use autounmask 
for most of it.  Then add in that the new autounmask part of emerge 
seems to pick a random file to add too.  At that point, not much makes 
sense anymore.

< sighs >  I don't think there is any really easy way to do this except 
to just run stable.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:40:40 Dale did opine thusly:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:27:11 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >>> That's because those are global flags. If you set
> >>> package-specific flags in /etc/portage/package.use,
> >>> eix-test-obsolete will tell you when entries can be
> >>> removed.
> >> 
> >> But when something new comes out, I usually want to add it for
> >> all the packages.  I have a few things listed in package.use
> >> but I don't want to clutter the crap out of it and then have
> >> two files that needs cleaning.
> > 
> > Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to
> > manage. All of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.
> 
> I have done that for package.keywords and unmask.  In ways it is
> easier but in ways, it is a nightmare.  If something is unmasked, I
> have to go find the file that unmasked it.  I have several since I
> use autounmask for most of it.  Then add in that the new autounmask
> part of emerge seems to pick a random file to add too.  At that
> point, not much makes sense anymore.


grep is your very very good friend


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:54:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > > Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to
> > > manage. All of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.  
> > 
> > I have done that for package.keywords and unmask.  In ways it is
> > easier but in ways, it is a nightmare.  If something is unmasked, I
> > have to go find the file that unmasked it.  I have several since I
> > use autounmask for most of it.  Then add in that the new autounmask
> > part of emerge seems to pick a random file to add too.  At that
> > point, not much makes sense anymore.  

> grep is your very very good friend

So is giving the files sensible names :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

C&W music backward: get yer dog, wife, job, truck, kids, and sobriety
back.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:54:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>    
>>>> Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to
>>>> manage. All of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.
>>>>          
>>> I have done that for package.keywords and unmask.  In ways it is
>>> easier but in ways, it is a nightmare.  If something is unmasked, I
>>> have to go find the file that unmasked it.  I have several since I
>>> use autounmask for most of it.  Then add in that the new autounmask
>>> part of emerge seems to pick a random file to add too.  At that
>>> point, not much makes sense anymore.
>>>        
>    
>> grep is your very very good friend
>>      
> So is giving the files sensible names :)
>
>
>    

That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the portage 
one.  It gave them some names at least.  Still felt like looking for a 
needle in a haystack sometimes tho.

Dale

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 18:46:55 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:54:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>>> Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to
> >>>> manage. All of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.
> >>> 
> >>> I have done that for package.keywords and unmask.  In ways it is
> >>> easier but in ways, it is a nightmare.  If something is unmasked, I
> >>> have to go find the file that unmasked it.  I have several since I
> >>> use autounmask for most of it.  Then add in that the new autounmask
> >>> part of emerge seems to pick a random file to add too.  At that
> >>> point, not much makes sense anymore.
> >> 
> >> grep is your very very good friend

Hear, hear!

> > So is giving the files sensible names :)
> 
> That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the portage
> one.  It gave them some names at least.  Still felt like looking for a
> needle in a haystack sometimes tho.

I'm with you, Dale. I have no /etc/portage/package.* directories here on 
this amd64 box - I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single files. I 
find it easier.

I've also found it much easier to manage flags etc by setting the kde profile 
(this being a kde box, of course - gnome is too arrogant for me). It makes 
for a nice, simple USE line in make.conf.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:27:53 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > > So is giving the files sensible names :)  
> > 
> > That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the
> > portage one.  It gave them some names at least.  Still felt like
> > looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes tho.  
> 
> I'm with you, Dale. I have no /etc/portage/package.* directories here
> on this amd64 box - I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single
> files. I find it easier.

That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo
requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo
Then if I remove foo, I remove the use file. If they were alphabetically
sorted, and therefore separate, in one file, I wouldn't make the
connection. And I don't have to worry about sorting package.use every
time I make a change, ls does that for me.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

God is real, unless specifically declared integer.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:57:16 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:27:53 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > So is giving the files sensible names :)
> > > 
> > > That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the
> > > portage one.  It gave them some names at least.  Still felt like
> > > looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes tho.
> > 
> > I'm with you, Dale. I have no /etc/portage/package.* directories here
> > on this amd64 box - I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single
> > files. I find it easier.
> 
> That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo
> requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo
> Then if I remove foo, I remove the use file. If they were alphabetically
> sorted, and therefore separate, in one file, I wouldn't make the
> connection.

An occasional use of eix-test-obsolete does well enough for me. I ran it 
just now after several months, and it found one redundant entry in 
package.keywords (for libreoffice).

> And I don't have to worry about sorting package.use every time I make a
> change, ls does that for me.

I don't sort it; I put entries in in the right order to start with. An 
occasional entry put there by autounmask is demarcated anyway, so they're 
easy to see, and to delete when no longer needed.

It works well for me, but we all have different foibles.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Stroller]

On 23 June 2011, at 22:57, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> ... I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single
>> files. I find it easier.
> 
> That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo
> requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo
> Then if I remove foo, I remove the use file. If they were alphabetically
> sorted, and therefore separate, in one file, I wouldn't make the
> connection.

Mine isn't sorted, but it's only 20 items or so and it's grouped into "categories" of related programs. A few months ago I cleared out entries for a few programs that I no longer use - I would guess I will notice to do so again in another year or so.

Any packages which are listed because they're dependencies of something else, I add that as a # comment at the beginning of the line.

I like the idea of package.use as a directory of indie files, but haven't bothered switching over because this works so well for me. The package.use directory system seems too simple to be true - is it really no more complex than a directory of any-named files of the same format?

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[William Kenworthy]

On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 13:02 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> On 23 June 2011, at 22:57, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> ... I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single
> >> files. I find it easier.
> > 
> > That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo
> > requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo
> > Then if I remove foo, I remove the use file. If they were alphabetically
> > sorted, and therefore separate, in one file, I wouldn't make the
> > connection.
> 
> Mine isn't sorted, but it's only 20 items or so and it's grouped into "categories" of related programs. A few months ago I cleared out entries for a few programs that I no longer use - I would guess I will notice to do so again in another year or so.
> 
> Any packages which are listed because they're dependencies of something else, I add that as a # comment at the beginning of the line.
> 
> I like the idea of package.use as a directory of indie files, but haven't bothered switching over because this works so well for me. The package.use directory system seems too simple to be true - is it really no more complex than a directory of any-named files of the same format?
> 
> Stroller.
> 
> 

Yes, its just directories ... but I switched one system over to it and
ran for a year or so in parallel with systems that are original - I am
going to switch back as its teeing me off big time.

"Sounded a good idea" - sucks in practise, making management more time
consuming and harder than it needed to be for absolutely no gain.  Think
of it this way, do you want to manage one keyword file or dozens.  The
heirarchal idea sounds good, but its just more work, more letters to
type, more files to search for packages, etc.

On a small, heavily managed server it might work, but ...

BillK



-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:02:23 +0100, Stroller wrote:

> I like the idea of package.use as a directory of indie files, but
> haven't bothered switching over because this works so well for me. The
> package.use directory system seems too simple to be true - is it really
> no more complex than a directory of any-named files of the same format?

Yes.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 3: Working vacation

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/22/2011 02:18 PM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 06:55 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>>
>>> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>>> * USE: amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib policykit
>>> userland_GNU
>>> * FEATURES: preserve-libs sandbox
>>>
>>> * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>>> * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>>> * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>>> * fortran dialects are support.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>>> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
>>> stuff.
>>
>> Uninstall sci-libs/blas-reference I guess. And probably whatever
>> depends on it. Please do an "emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference" and
>> post the output so we can see what's pulling it as a dep on your system.
>>
>
> Here is the output:
>
> root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 pulled in by:
> virtual/blas-1.0

OK, that didn't help.  Try: emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas


> Two things. I read about this on -dev but didn't realize it was going to
> affect me until I saw the message. After I added fortran to my USE line
> in make.conf, it only rebuilt gcc then revdep-rebuild rebuilt
> dev-lang/ifc-10.0.026-r1. Everything appears to be clean now.
>
> To think people wonder why my USE line is so big. I keep having to add
> stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell
> off the reservation and needs to be removed. < sighs > Over the years,
> it adds up.

That is no solution.  I highly doubt you need a Fortran compiler :-/  By 
adding more stuff to your make.conf as a work-around for problems like 
this, you add more and more stuff to your Gentoo install; stuff you 
actually have zero use for.  By that logic, you could enable every 
possible USE flag that exists so that you always have everything, just 
in case.  But then you should probably be using openSUSE or something :-P

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 02:18 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 06/22/2011 06:55 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>>>
>>>> * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>>>> * USE: amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib policykit
>>>> userland_GNU
>>>> * FEATURES: preserve-libs sandbox
>>>>
>>>> * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>>>> * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>>>> * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>>>> * fortran dialects are support.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>>>> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a 
>>>> bunch of
>>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> Uninstall sci-libs/blas-reference I guess. And probably whatever
>>> depends on it. Please do an "emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference" and
>>> post the output so we can see what's pulling it as a dep on your 
>>> system.
>>>
>>
>> Here is the output:
>>
>> root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 pulled in by:
>> virtual/blas-1.0
>
> OK, that didn't help.  Try: emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas
>
>

Here you go:

root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas

Calculating dependencies... done!
   virtual/blas-1.0 pulled in by:
     dev-lang/R-2.10.1

 >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean
Packages installed:   989
Packages in world:    119
Packages in system:   51
Required packages:    989
Number to remove:     0
root@fireball / #


>> Two things. I read about this on -dev but didn't realize it was going to
>> affect me until I saw the message. After I added fortran to my USE line
>> in make.conf, it only rebuilt gcc then revdep-rebuild rebuilt
>> dev-lang/ifc-10.0.026-r1. Everything appears to be clean now.
>>
>> To think people wonder why my USE line is so big. I keep having to add
>> stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell
>> off the reservation and needs to be removed. < sighs > Over the years,
>> it adds up.
>
> That is no solution.  I highly doubt you need a Fortran compiler :-/  
> By adding more stuff to your make.conf as a work-around for problems 
> like this, you add more and more stuff to your Gentoo install; stuff 
> you actually have zero use for.  By that logic, you could enable every 
> possible USE flag that exists so that you always have everything, just 
> in case.  But then you should probably be using openSUSE or something :-P
>
>
>
Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here.  We all know I have to have 
that.  lol  Do you really want me to send you my USE line in make.conf?  
I copied it from my old install on another rig and it has been added to 
ever since oh about 2003.  It has some size to it.  Keep in mind, they 
didn't have package.use for a long time too.

I really need to clean out some stuff but want to have time to finish it 
when I start.  I don't have that sort of time during garden season.  I 
need food more than I need a puter.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here.

As it should?

c2stable ~ # equery hasuse fortran
 * Searching for USE flag fortran ...
[IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5:4.4
c2stable ~ #

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/22/2011 04:33 PM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 02:18 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>> On 06/22/2011 06:55 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>>>>> * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>>>>> * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>>>>> * fortran dialects are support.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Uninstall sci-libs/blas-reference I guess. And probably whatever
>>>> depends on it. Please do an "emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference" and
>>>> post the output so we can see what's pulling it as a dep on your
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> Here is the output:
>>>
>>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>>> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 pulled in by:
>>> virtual/blas-1.0
>>
>> OK, that didn't help. Try: emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas
>
> Here you go:
>
> root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> virtual/blas-1.0 pulled in by:
> dev-lang/R-2.10.1

I suppose you got the idea by now ;-)  Do you need dev-lang/R?  If not, 
then "emerge -pv --depclean dev-lang/R".  Do you need the package(s) 
that this brings up?  If not, continue --depclean those until you reach 
something that has no other dependencies; meaning you reached the top 
level.  Do you need *that*?  If not, unmerge it, then depclean 
everything (just "emerge -a --depclean".)

This should get rid of all stuff you don't actually need/want.


>> [...]
>> That is no solution. I highly doubt you need a Fortran compiler :-/ By
>> adding more stuff to your make.conf as a work-around for problems like
>> this, you add more and more stuff to your Gentoo install; stuff you
>> actually have zero use for. By that logic, you could enable every
>> possible USE flag that exists so that you always have everything, just
>> in case. But then you should probably be using openSUSE or something :-P
>>
> Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here. We all know I have to have
> that.

GCC is a compiler collection.  You usually only need gcc and g++. 
Fortan, Objective-C, Objective-C++, ADA, Pascal, Java, whatever else is 
usually something you don't install unless you know you need it.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> I suppose you got the idea by now ;-)  Do you need dev-lang/R?  If 
> not, then "emerge -pv --depclean dev-lang/R".  Do you need the 
> package(s) that this brings up?  If not, continue --depclean those 
> until you reach something that has no other dependencies; meaning you 
> reached the top level.  Do you need *that*?  If not, unmerge it, then 
> depclean everything (just "emerge -a --depclean".)
>
> This should get rid of all stuff you don't actually need/want.
>
>

Well, that leads back to KDE.  So, looks like it stays.


>>> [...]
>>> That is no solution. I highly doubt you need a Fortran compiler :-/ By
>>> adding more stuff to your make.conf as a work-around for problems like
>>> this, you add more and more stuff to your Gentoo install; stuff you
>>> actually have zero use for. By that logic, you could enable every
>>> possible USE flag that exists so that you always have everything, just
>>> in case. But then you should probably be using openSUSE or something 
>>> :-P
>>>
>> Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here. We all know I have to have
>> that.
>
> GCC is a compiler collection.  You usually only need gcc and g++. 
> Fortan, Objective-C, Objective-C++, ADA, Pascal, Java, whatever else 
> is usually something you don't install unless you know you need it.
>

But gcc is the one that got rebuilt when I changed the USE flag.  So, it 
needs it because the other package needs it and in the end, KDE needs 
all that stuff.  So, the flag is added and I guess it is needed by 
something I want to keep.  Sort of like my GUI and all.  ;-)

Funny thing is, it appears the dev changed it back so after the next 
sync, I can shorten my USE line by one flag.  Progress.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/22/2011 06:35 PM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>> I suppose you got the idea by now ;-) Do you need dev-lang/R? If not,
>> then "emerge -pv --depclean dev-lang/R". Do you need the package(s)
>> that this brings up? If not, continue --depclean those until you reach
>> something that has no other dependencies; meaning you reached the top
>> level. Do you need *that*? If not, unmerge it, then depclean
>> everything (just "emerge -a --depclean".)
>>
>> This should get rid of all stuff you don't actually need/want.
>>
>>
>
> Well, that leads back to KDE. So, looks like it stays.

And KDE wants Fortran because you have that USE flag enabled in 
make.conf :-D


>>> Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here. We all know I have to have
>>> that.
>>
>> GCC is a compiler collection. You usually only need gcc and g++.
>> Fortan, Objective-C, Objective-C++, ADA, Pascal, Java, whatever else
>> is usually something you don't install unless you know you need it.
>
> But gcc is the one that got rebuilt when I changed the USE flag. So, it
> needs it because the other package needs it and in the end, KDE needs
> all that stuff. So, the flag is added and I guess it is needed by
> something I want to keep. Sort of like my GUI and all. ;-)

I'm on KDE too, and it doesn't need it.  Probably because my make.conf 
explicitly says "-fortran" in it.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> I'm on KDE too, and it doesn't need it.  Probably because my make.conf
> explicitly says "-fortran" in it.
>

That's actually the correct statement. When I removed the fortran flag
it didn't change anything because (I suppose) the KDE profile has
included it as a default.

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 17:23:44 Mark Knecht wrote:

> When I removed the fortran flag it didn't change anything because (I
> suppose) the KDE profile has included it as a default.

So it seems. I've just tried "USE=-fortran emerge -upDvN world" and the only 
thing that would be remerged because of fortran is gcc. So I'm going to put 
-fortran into make.conf and see what breaks.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 17:23:44 Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>    
>> When I removed the fortran flag it didn't change anything because (I
>> suppose) the KDE profile has included it as a default.
>>      
> So it seems. I've just tried "USE=-fortran emerge -upDvN world" and the only
> thing that would be remerged because of fortran is gcc. So I'm going to put
> -fortran into make.conf and see what breaks.
>
>    

It will break several things.  This is what I just went through.  It 
appears that if you emerge kde-meta, you have to have a fortran type 
compiler.  So, you may as well keep what you got if it is working.  When 
I started going down this road, I thought I could just disable fortran 
and have less packages installed.  That is not the case.  I removed 
fortran then had to replace that with even more packages than I had to 
begin with.

If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone.  With hindsight, 
I should have left well enough alone anyway.  It wasn't hurting a 
thing.  Watch the elog messages.  It will tell you at some point to 
either enable fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the 
name of.  That one package pulled several dependencies on my rig.  YMMV.

Just my $0.02 for whatever that's worth.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 17:23:44 Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>> When I removed the fortran flag it didn't change anything because (I
>>> suppose) the KDE profile has included it as a default.
>> So it seems. I've just tried "USE=-fortran emerge -upDvN world" and
>> the only
>> thing that would be remerged because of fortran is gcc. So I'm going
>> to put
>> -fortran into make.conf and see what breaks.
>>
>
> It will break several things. This is what I just went through. It
> appears that if you emerge kde-meta, you have to have a fortran type
> compiler. So, you may as well keep what you got if it is working. When I
> started going down this road, I thought I could just disable fortran and
> have less packages installed. That is not the case. I removed fortran
> then had to replace that with even more packages than I had to begin with.
>
> If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With hindsight,
> I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't hurting a thing.
> Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at some point to either enable
> fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the name of. That one
> package pulled several dependencies on my rig. YMMV.

Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf and 
there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that need a 
fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed; that's a waste 
of resources.  I only install what I actually need.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 17:23:44 Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I removed the fortran flag it didn't change anything because (I
>>>> suppose) the KDE profile has included it as a default.
>>> So it seems. I've just tried "USE=-fortran emerge -upDvN world" and
>>> the only
>>> thing that would be remerged because of fortran is gcc. So I'm going
>>> to put
>>> -fortran into make.conf and see what breaks.
>>>
>>
>> It will break several things. This is what I just went through. It
>> appears that if you emerge kde-meta, you have to have a fortran type
>> compiler. So, you may as well keep what you got if it is working. When I
>> started going down this road, I thought I could just disable fortran and
>> have less packages installed. That is not the case. I removed fortran
>> then had to replace that with even more packages than I had to begin 
>> with.
>>
>> If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With hindsight,
>> I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't hurting a thing.
>> Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at some point to either enable
>> fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the name of. That one
>> package pulled several dependencies on my rig. YMMV.
>
> Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf and 
> there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that need a 
> fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed; that's a 
> waste of resources.  I only install what I actually need.
>

I seem to recall you having -fortran all the time tho.  It's the change 
that breaks things.  I mentioned it in case he is using kde-meta since 
it should pull in the same packages as on mine.  If that is so, he will 
end up with broken stuff and will need to fix them.

This is one of those situations where it depends on what you have 
installed and if you are changing something.  This doesn't apply to 
everyone just those have not had -fortran set before and installed kde-meta.

This may not apply to you but it may apply to others.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2011, 08:04:43 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
> > If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With hindsight,
> > I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't hurting a thing.
> > Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at some point to either enable
> > fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the name of. That one
> > package pulled several dependencies on my rig. YMMV.
> 
> Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf and
> there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that need a
> fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed; that's a waste
> of resources.  I only install what I actually need.

You have no programs, that *need* fortran, but it could well be, that you have 
programs installed, that perform better when compiled with a fortran compiler.
I think of sci-libs/fftw here as an example. It's used by programs like 
blender, imagemagick and maybe some others. The developers of said library use 
fortran, because they benchmarked it. If you disable fortran, you use the 
slower C fallback solution. If you disable fftw in those packages, you get a 
slower implementation too afaik.
After all, gentoo is a source based distribution. We all already have a couple 
of languages installed. There's a C compiler a standard user will never use. 
There's a C++ compiler only used by programmers. We all have them, only to 
compile programs, that need them.
Why not enable fortran, even if it's only optional, to get the best of the 
available implementations? In the end it's only one programming language more 
installed on your system.

Regards,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[David W Noon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2688 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:18:23 +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote about
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?:

> Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2011, 08:04:43 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> > On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
> > > If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With
> > > hindsight, I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't
> > > hurting a thing. Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at
> > > some point to either enable fortran or emerge some other package
> > > that I forget the name of. That one package pulled several
> > > dependencies on my rig. YMMV.
> > 
> > Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf
> > and there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that
> > need a fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed;
> > that's a waste of resources.  I only install what I actually need.
> 
> You have no programs, that *need* fortran, but it could well be, that
> you have programs installed, that perform better when compiled with a
> fortran compiler. I think of sci-libs/fftw here as an example. It's
> used by programs like blender, imagemagick and maybe some others. The
> developers of said library use fortran, because they benchmarked it.
> If you disable fortran, you use the slower C fallback solution. If
> you disable fftw in those packages, you get a slower implementation
> too afaik.

Just to add some further prophecy to this: with GCC 4.6 the gfortran
compiler became a complete implementation of Fortran 2003.  This allows
for Object Oriented Programming (OOP), the fashionable style of
designing code these days.  This means that there could well be more
new software written in Fortran; without a Fortran compiler a user will
be unable to install this code on a source-based distro like Gentoo.

> After all, gentoo is a source based distribution. We all
> already have a couple of languages installed. There's a C compiler a
> standard user will never use. There's a C++ compiler only used by
> programmers. We all have them, only to compile programs, that need
> them. Why not enable fortran, even if it's only optional, to get the
> best of the available implementations? In the end it's only one
> programming language more installed on your system.

Indeed, the ability to compile as many languages as possible is almost
a necessity for users of a source-based system like Gentoo.
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwnoon@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2011, 08:04:43 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>    
>> On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
>>      
>>> If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With hindsight,
>>> I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't hurting a thing.
>>> Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at some point to either enable
>>> fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the name of. That one
>>> package pulled several dependencies on my rig. YMMV.
>>>        
>> Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf and
>> there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that need a
>> fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed; that's a waste
>> of resources.  I only install what I actually need.
>>      
> You have no programs, that *need* fortran, but it could well be, that you have
> programs installed, that perform better when compiled with a fortran compiler.
> I think of sci-libs/fftw here as an example. It's used by programs like
> blender, imagemagick and maybe some others. The developers of said library use
> fortran, because they benchmarked it. If you disable fortran, you use the
> slower C fallback solution. If you disable fftw in those packages, you get a
> slower implementation too afaik.
> After all, gentoo is a source based distribution. We all already have a couple
> of languages installed. There's a C compiler a standard user will never use.
> There's a C++ compiler only used by programmers. We all have them, only to
> compile programs, that need them.
> Why not enable fortran, even if it's only optional, to get the best of the
> available implementations? In the end it's only one programming language more
> installed on your system.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>    

I just wonder if that is why Cantor was set up to use fortran by 
default.  Not because it is smaller, requires a few less package but 
that it is what it is designed to run off of.  It may well work with 
something else but not as fast, not as good or something else we don't 
know about.

Just makes me think again on this one.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2011, 15:00:32 schrieb Dale:
> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2011, 08:04:43 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> >> On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
> >>> If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With
> >>> hindsight,
> >>> I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't hurting a
> >>> thing.
> >>> Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at some point to either
> >>> enable fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the name
> >>> of. That one package pulled several dependencies on my rig. YMMV.
> >> 
> >> Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf and
> >> there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that need a
> >> fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed; that's a
> >> waste
> >> of resources.  I only install what I actually need.
> > 
> > You have no programs, that *need* fortran, but it could well be, that
> > you have programs installed, that perform better when compiled with a
> > fortran compiler. I think of sci-libs/fftw here as an example. It's
> > used by programs like blender, imagemagick and maybe some others. The
> > developers of said library use fortran, because they benchmarked it. If
> > you disable fortran, you use the slower C fallback solution. If you
> > disable fftw in those packages, you get a slower implementation too
> > afaik.
> > After all, gentoo is a source based distribution. We all already have a
> > couple of languages installed. There's a C compiler a standard user
> > will never use. There's a C++ compiler only used by programmers. We all
> > have them, only to compile programs, that need them.
> > Why not enable fortran, even if it's only optional, to get the best of
> > the available implementations? In the end it's only one programming
> > language more installed on your system.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Michael
> 
> I just wonder if that is why Cantor was set up to use fortran by
> default.  Not because it is smaller, requires a few less package but
> that it is what it is designed to run off of.  It may well work with
> something else but not as fast, not as good or something else we don't
> know about.

cantor uses R as default backend. R uses fortran. And yes, that's because of 
its speed, when it comes to mathematics and numerics.

> Just makes me think again on this one.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>
> cantor uses R as default backend. R uses fortran. And yes, that's because of
> its speed, when it comes to mathematics and numerics.
>
>    
> Michael
>
>    

I put it back like it was.  Heck, if I don't, something else will need 
it later on and portage will puke on my keyboard about it being 
disabled.  As it is now, portage will do what is best since the devs 
tell it what to do.  I know they know more about this than I do.

I guess my first post was correct after all.  Enable fortran USE flag 
and keep things as it was before it got changed.  It was working fine.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:52:44 -0500, Dale wrote:

> I guess my first post was correct after all.  Enable fortran USE flag 
> and keep things as it was before it got changed.  It was working fine.

Isn't that flag enabled by default? All you have yo do is not disable it.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Self-explanatory": technospeak for "Incomprehensible & undocumented"

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:52:44 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> I guess my first post was correct after all.  Enable fortran USE flag
>> and keep things as it was before it got changed.  It was working fine.
>>      
> Isn't that flag enabled by default? All you have yo do is not disable it.
>
>
>    

You seem to have forgot the dev had changed it.  Since it got noticed 
and all the dev changed it back in about a day or so.  So, it was 
enabled, got disabled by a dev then got enabled again by the same dev.  
That was the reason this whole thread started to begin with, to alert 
people that a USE flag got disabled and SOME of us need to enable it 
again if we want things to stay the same.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 764 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:29:12 -0500, Dale wrote:

> >> I guess my first post was correct after all.  Enable fortran USE flag
> >> and keep things as it was before it got changed.  It was working
> >> fine. 
> > Isn't that flag enabled by default? All you have yo do is not disable
> > it.

> You seem to have forgot the dev had changed it.  Since it got noticed 
> and all the dev changed it back in about a day or so.  So, it was 
> enabled, got disabled by a dev then got enabled again by the same dev.  

ISTR reading some mention of that. Do you mean the profile was changed?
That sounds a bit naughty, changing a profile should be done on a version
bump IMO.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:29:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>>>> I guess my first post was correct after all.  Enable fortran USE flag
>>>> and keep things as it was before it got changed.  It was working
>>>> fine.
>>>>          
>>> Isn't that flag enabled by default? All you have yo do is not disable
>>> it.
>>>        
>    
>> You seem to have forgot the dev had changed it.  Since it got noticed
>> and all the dev changed it back in about a day or so.  So, it was
>> enabled, got disabled by a dev then got enabled again by the same dev.
>>      
> ISTR reading some mention of that. Do you mean the profile was changed?
> That sounds a bit naughty, changing a profile should be done on a version
> bump IMO.
>
>
>    

I don't know for sure where it was changed but the dev that did the 
change posted this:

> We restructured the dependency chain for fortran support, which includes
> a compile test now. The failure can be seen above.
>
> The Problem was in short, USE=fortran was enabled by default for linux
> arches, but people tend to disable it. Depending on gcc[fortran] doesn't
> work completely as gcc:4.4[fortran] and gcc:4.5[-fortran] with gcc-4.5
> select can be installed, which would full fill the dependency but
> nevertheless doesn't give a working compiler.
>
> So now packages depend on virtual/fortran and use an eclass to check for
> a working compiler. So if you see this message, this means you somehow
> worked around gcc[fortran].
>
>
> justin
>    

That make sense?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]


>>
>> justin
>>    
> 
> That make sense?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

Hi,

as most of you do not like to have fortran enabled by default, we tried
to find a way around. We created a virtual/fortran which should depend
on a working fortran compiler so that only ebuilds which need fortran
compiler will build it. With that situation it was possible to remove
USE=fortran from the profile (btw profiles cannot have a version bump
and don't need it) so that most of you could drop the fortran support
from gcc except a ebuild depends on it.

However I wasn't aware that there is no hierarchy in the dependencies in
an ebuild and portage will choose a solution w/o a USE change first.
That is the reason why many of you saw that ifc should be installed,
instead of gcc with USE=fortran. That was the point where I added it
back to the profile as a default enabled USE.

The solution for the average user is leaving all default USE on. This
will gcc build the fortran support and you will have no problem. (Libs
and compiler are 1.5MB on my system)

Or remove add -fortran to your make.conf and add sys-devel/gcc fortran
to your /etc/portage/package.use.

Trying to avoid any fortran at all is stupid, because as already
mentioned many math operations are faster if programmed in fortran.

Cheers justin




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 267 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 25 June 2011 13:46:35 justin wrote:

> I wasn't aware that there is no hierarchy in the dependencies in an ebuild
> and portage will choose a solution w/o a USE change first. That is the
> reason why many of you saw that ifc should be installed, instead of gcc
> with USE=fortran. That was the point where I added it back to the profile
> as a default enabled USE.

So what happened to pre-release testing?

> Trying to avoid any fortran at all is stupid,

That's the sort of arrogance that gets developers a bad name.

> as already mentioned many math operations are faster if programmed in
> fortran.

Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What matters 
to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I don't need a 
Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system resources on building one.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 14:58:56 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What matters
> to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I don't need a
> Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system resources on building one.

Try euse -I fortran.
If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.

Regards
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 25 June 2011 20:12:00 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:

> Try euse -I fortran.
> If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.

Nope.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 14:58:56 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
>    
>> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What matters
>> to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I don't need a
>> Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system resources on building one.
>>      
> Try euse -I fortran.
> If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.
>
> Regards
> Michael
>
>    

That doesn't appear to work like it should then.  I get this:

root@fireball / # euse -I fortran
global use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
[+ CD   ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)

Installed packages matching this USE flag:
sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5

local use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
no matching entries found
root@fireball / #

Thing is, I know a couple packages use it on this rig because I just had 
to recompile them.  Cantor and R are two that I recall.

Maybe it is because it is not a option in the list?  The USE flag that is.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011, 10:28:47 schrieb Dale:
> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 14:58:56 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> >> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What
> >> matters to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I
> >> don't need a Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system
> >> resources on building one.
> > 
> > Try euse -I fortran.
> > If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Michael
> 
> That doesn't appear to work like it should then.  I get this:
> 
> root@fireball / # euse -I fortran
> global use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> [+ CD   ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
> 
> Installed packages matching this USE flag:
> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5
> 
> local use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> no matching entries found
> root@fireball / #
> 
> Thing is, I know a couple packages use it on this rig because I just had
> to recompile them.  Cantor and R are two that I recall.
> 
> Maybe it is because it is not a option in the list?  The USE flag that is.

Iirc you had problems with -fortran, because you have packages that really 
need fortran. My suggestion was for people like Peter, who have no problems 
without fortran. It shows only packages which could perform better, if a 
fortran compiler is available and otherwise fallback to a C implementation. At 
least, I think it does :)
 
> Dale
> :-)  :-)

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011, 10:28:47 schrieb Dale:
>    
>> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>>      
>>> Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 14:58:56 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
>>>        
>>>> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What
>>>> matters to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I
>>>> don't need a Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system
>>>> resources on building one.
>>>>          
>>> Try euse -I fortran.
>>> If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael
>>>        
>> That doesn't appear to work like it should then.  I get this:
>>
>> root@fireball / # euse -I fortran
>> global use flags (searching: fortran)
>> ************************************************************
>> [+ CD   ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>>
>> Installed packages matching this USE flag:
>> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5
>>
>> local use flags (searching: fortran)
>> ************************************************************
>> no matching entries found
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Thing is, I know a couple packages use it on this rig because I just had
>> to recompile them.  Cantor and R are two that I recall.
>>
>> Maybe it is because it is not a option in the list?  The USE flag that is.
>>      
> Iirc you had problems with -fortran, because you have packages that really
> need fortran. My suggestion was for people like Peter, who have no problems
> without fortran. It shows only packages which could perform better, if a
> fortran compiler is available and otherwise fallback to a C implementation. At
> least, I think it does :)
>
>    
>> Dale
>> :-)  :-)
>>      
> Michael
>
>    

Thing is, I switched it back and programs on here now need fortran to 
build.  So, euse is not reporting it but R and Cantor won't build 
without fortran.  Basically, euse should also report R and cantor but it 
isn't.  If mine isn't reporting that, then Peter's may not either.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011, 15:01:19 schrieb Dale:
> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011, 10:28:47 schrieb Dale:
> >> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> >>> Am Samstag, 25. Juni 2011, 14:58:56 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> >>>> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial.
> >>>> What
> >>>> matters to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I
> >>>> don't need a Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system
> >>>> resources on building one.
> >>> 
> >>> Try euse -I fortran.
> >>> If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.
> >>> 
> >>> Regards
> >>> Michael
> >> 
> >> That doesn't appear to work like it should then.  I get this:
> >> 
> >> root@fireball / # euse -I fortran
> >> global use flags (searching: fortran)
> >> ************************************************************
> >> [+ CD   ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
> >> 
> >> Installed packages matching this USE flag:
> >> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5
> >> 
> >> local use flags (searching: fortran)
> >> ************************************************************
> >> no matching entries found
> >> root@fireball / #
> >> 
> >> Thing is, I know a couple packages use it on this rig because I just
> >> had
> >> to recompile them.  Cantor and R are two that I recall.
> >> 
> >> Maybe it is because it is not a option in the list?  The USE flag that
> >> is.
> > 
> > Iirc you had problems with -fortran, because you have packages that
> > really need fortran. My suggestion was for people like Peter, who have
> > no problems without fortran. It shows only packages which could perform
> > better, if a fortran compiler is available and otherwise fallback to a
> > C implementation. At least, I think it does :)
> > 
> >> Dale
> >> 
> >> :-)  :-)
> > 
> > Michael
> 
> Thing is, I switched it back and programs on here now need fortran to
> build.  So, euse is not reporting it but R and Cantor won't build
> without fortran.

That's because R needs a fortran compiler to compile. It does not have a C 
fallback solution for its maths. cantor depends on R per default. So it won't 
build until a working R is installed.
Peter is not having problems without fortran. Everything compiles fine. So I am 
quite shure he has neither R nor cantor installed or any other program that 
needs a fortran compiler to build at all.
This euse command shows only packages where fortran is optional. This means 
better performance, when enabled, in all (at least almost all) cases.

> Basically, euse should also report R and cantor but it
> isn't.  If mine isn't reporting that, then Peter's may not either.

That's impossible, I think. euse reports USE-flags. These programs don't have a 
fortran-USE-flag. R needs it unconditionally..

> Dale
> :-)  :-)

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/26/2011 4:01 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011, 10:28:47 schrieb Dale:
>>> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:

>>>> Try euse -I fortran.
>>>> If anything besides gcc pops up, you should have one.

>>> That doesn't appear to work like it should then. I get this:
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # euse -I fortran
>>> global use flags (searching: fortran)
>>> ************************************************************
>>> [+ CD ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>>>
>>> Installed packages matching this USE flag:
>>> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5
>>>
>>> local use flags (searching: fortran)
>>> ************************************************************
>>> no matching entries found
>>> root@fireball / #

> Thing is, I switched it back and programs on here now need
> fortran to build. So, euse is not reporting it but R and
> Cantor won't build without fortran. Basically, euse should
> also report R and cantor but it isn't. If mine isn't
> reporting that, then Peter's may not either.

Neither of those packages has a "fortran" USE flag, and 
cantor doesn't "know" anything about FORTRAN.

cantor has an R USE flag, to switch it's R backend on/off. R 
doesn't have a USE flag for FORTRAN because that would be 
pointless -- it *requires* an f77 compiler, so it depends on 
virtual/fortran unconditionally.

You would probably be better off using

root@platypus ~ # equery depends virtual/fortran
dev-python/numpy-1.6.0 (lapack ? virtual/fortran)

You will probably have both R and blas in that list as well. 
If so, you will need to continue to enable gcc[fortran] to 
build those.

(The fact that gcc has a fortran USE flag is only relevant 
because it's the default compiler; you could also 
potentially have ifc installed to satisfy virtual/fortran, 
rendering gcc's USE flag irrelevant.)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Stroller]

On 25 June 2011, at 14:58, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Saturday 25 June 2011 13:46:35 justin wrote:
> ...
>> Trying to avoid any fortran at all is stupid,
> 
> That's the sort of arrogance that gets developers a bad name.
> 
>> as already mentioned many math operations are faster if programmed in
>> fortran.
> 
> Whether "many" operations are written in Fortran is immaterial. What matters 
> to me is whether any on my system are. If they aren't, I don't need a 
> Fortran compiler and I'd rather not waste system resources on building one.

Please don't bitch out the devs - we have few enough of them as it is.

I have a number of bugs open (on b.g.o), one or two of which have not moved in months. The others are newer, and I assume they're are not going to get fixed much faster, and I assume the reason is that there just aren't the developer resources available. I mean, I could assume that the devs just hate me, but that seems a pessimistic attitude. I'm pretty sure they're not breaking things out of spite.

None of my bugs are fixed as easily as recompiling a couple of packages - I don't whine about trivial stuff like that - they all require manual intervention and that I modify ebuilds myself and keep them in local. I sunk several hours into this this weekend.

I would be glad to bitch out the devs and say "why aren't you doing it this way?", "why isn't this fixed yet?" but I don't feel I have any right to. I'm reserving bitching out the devs until I can afford to pay them money on a regular basis. What's your entitlement?

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 26 June 2011 11:45:24 Stroller wrote:

> I would be glad to bitch out the devs and say "why aren't you doing it
> this way?", "why isn't this fixed yet?" but I don't feel I have any
> right to. I'm reserving bitching out the devs until I can afford to pay
> them money on a regular basis. What's your entitlement?

I don't do that either, but calling me stupid is not the best way to get my 
sympathy.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 25 June 2011 14:46:35 justin did opine thusly:
> >> justin
> > 
> > That make sense?
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as most of you do not like to have fortran enabled by default, we
> tried to find a way around. We created a virtual/fortran which
> should depend on a working fortran compiler so that only ebuilds
> which need fortran compiler will build it. With that situation it
> was possible to remove USE=fortran from the profile (btw profiles
> cannot have a version bump and don't need it) so that most of you
> could drop the fortran support from gcc except a ebuild depends on
> it.
> 
> However I wasn't aware that there is no hierarchy in the
> dependencies in an ebuild and portage will choose a solution w/o a
> USE change first. That is the reason why many of you saw that ifc
> should be installed, instead of gcc with USE=fortran. That was the
> point where I added it back to the profile as a default enabled
> USE.
> 
> The solution for the average user is leaving all default USE on.
> This will gcc build the fortran support and you will have no
> problem. (Libs and compiler are 1.5MB on my system)
> 
> Or remove add -fortran to your make.conf and add sys-devel/gcc
> fortran to your /etc/portage/package.use.
> 
> Trying to avoid any fortran at all is stupid, because as already
> mentioned many math operations are faster if programmed in fortran.

Feedback from the consumer end of the producer-consumer link :-)

The motivation is fine and well, it didn't quite work out, we call 
this a "bug".

The only real mistake was trying to slipstream it in without 
notification or warning. devs all agree we should never do this, but 
it is so ... tempting.

I've made the same mistake myself many many times, and each time it 
came back and bit me hard :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> Feedback from the consumer end of the producer-consumer link :-)
>
> The motivation is fine and well, it didn't quite work out, we call
> this a "bug".
>
> The only real mistake was trying to slipstream it in without
> notification or warning. devs all agree we should never do this, but
> it is so ... tempting.
>
> I've made the same mistake myself many many times, and each time it
> came back and bit me hard :-)
>
>
>    

What I like is the speed it got corrected.  People that don't sync often 
most likely didn't even know it ever changed.

Another like, a dev that at least reads some of this stuff on -user.  
It's a good way to get feedback.  If you change something and it doesn't 
get mentioned, most likely all is well.  If it does get mentioned, may 
want to rethink the change.

Lessons learned the hard way are the ones we remember the longest.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1695 bytes --]

On Saturday 25 Jun 2011 20:45:58 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Feedback from the consumer end of the producer-consumer link :-)
> > 
> > The motivation is fine and well, it didn't quite work out, we call
> > this a "bug".
> > 
> > The only real mistake was trying to slipstream it in without
> > notification or warning. devs all agree we should never do this, but
> > it is so ... tempting.
> > 
> > I've made the same mistake myself many many times, and each time it
> > came back and bit me hard :-)
> 
> What I like is the speed it got corrected.  People that don't sync often
> most likely didn't even know it ever changed.
> 
> Another like, a dev that at least reads some of this stuff on -user.
> It's a good way to get feedback.  If you change something and it doesn't
> get mentioned, most likely all is well.  If it does get mentioned, may
> want to rethink the change.
> 
> Lessons learned the hard way are the ones we remember the longest.  ;-)

I am getting confused:


$ euse -I fortran
global use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
[+  D   ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)

Installed packages matching this USE flag: 
sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5

local use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
no matching entries found


Two days ago or so, virtual fortran installed itself.  A day later it 
uninstalled itself.  Now fortran is set in USE as default.


I don't know if the film I was watching on TV about aliens has something to do 
with this, but I seem to have lost some time ...  ;-)
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[William Kenworthy]

On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 14:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > Feedback from the consumer end of the producer-consumer link :-)
> >
> > The motivation is fine and well, it didn't quite work out, we call
> > this a "bug".
> >
> > The only real mistake was trying to slipstream it in without
> > notification or warning. devs all agree we should never do this, but
> > it is so ... tempting.
> >
> > I've made the same mistake myself many many times, and each time it
> > came back and bit me hard :-)
> >
> >
> >    
> 
> What I like is the speed it got corrected.  People that don't sync often 
> most likely didn't even know it ever changed.
> 
...

I got bit, on a 6 monthly major update across multiple systems - what
were the odds of that happening?  

Despite that, its small potatoes in the scheme of updating perl/python
and other major packages ...

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

William Kenworthy wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 14:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>    
>>
>> What I like is the speed it got corrected.  People that don't sync often
>> most likely didn't even know it ever changed.
>>
>>      
> ...
>
> I got bit, on a 6 monthly major update across multiple systems - what
> were the odds of that happening?
>
> Despite that, its small potatoes in the scheme of updating perl/python
> and other major packages ...
>
> BillK
>
>    

Ummmmm.  Ouch !!  Well compiling gcc a couple times will give them a 
workout.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/25/2011 8:04 AM, Dale wrote:

>> We restructured the dependency chain for fortran support,
>> which includes
>> a compile test now. The failure can be seen above.
>>
>> The Problem was in short, USE=fortran was enabled by
>> default for linux
>> arches, but people tend to disable it. Depending on
>> gcc[fortran] doesn't
>> work completely as gcc:4.4[fortran] and gcc:4.5[-fortran]
>> with gcc-4.5
>> select can be installed, which would full fill the
>> dependency but
>> nevertheless doesn't give a working compiler.
>>
>> So now packages depend on virtual/fortran and use an
>> eclass to check for
>> a working compiler. So if you see this message, this means
>> you somehow
>> worked around gcc[fortran].

> That make sense?

Yes. He's saying they didn't change the USE flag, they 
changed the fortran dependency test to actually do a 
run-time check for fortran because the USE flag alone wasn't 
sufficient.

Which means you most likely had a non-working cantor and no 
fortran compiler before and just didn't notice :)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 8:04 AM, Dale wrote:
>
>>> We restructured the dependency chain for fortran support,
>>> which includes
>>> a compile test now. The failure can be seen above.
>>>
>>> The Problem was in short, USE=fortran was enabled by
>>> default for linux
>>> arches, but people tend to disable it. Depending on
>>> gcc[fortran] doesn't
>>> work completely as gcc:4.4[fortran] and gcc:4.5[-fortran]
>>> with gcc-4.5
>>> select can be installed, which would full fill the
>>> dependency but
>>> nevertheless doesn't give a working compiler.
>>>
>>> So now packages depend on virtual/fortran and use an
>>> eclass to check for
>>> a working compiler. So if you see this message, this means
>>> you somehow
>>> worked around gcc[fortran].
>
>> That make sense?
>
> Yes. He's saying they didn't change the USE flag, they changed the 
> fortran dependency test to actually do a run-time check for fortran 
> because the USE flag alone wasn't sufficient.
>
> Which means you most likely had a non-working cantor and no fortran 
> compiler before and just didn't notice :)
>
> --Mike
>
>

My understanding, USE flag was there and had been for a long time, got 
changed, this thread was started, discussion was had, USE flag was put 
back the way it was.  So actually it was only not working while I was 
messing with it.  That would be true ONLY if you were using the 
defaults.  If you had -fortran then nothing should have changed as would 
having fortran enabled.  It was only folks like me that didn't have any 
mention of fortran that were affected.

Just one of those things.  ;-)   As someone else posted, this was minor 
compared to some things we have ran into.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/24/2011 10:18 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2011, 08:04:43 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>> On 06/24/2011 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> If it works with fortran turned on, I'd leave it alone. With hindsight,
>>> I should have left well enough alone anyway. It wasn't hurting a thing.
>>> Watch the elog messages. It will tell you at some point to either enable
>>> fortran or emerge some other package that I forget the name of. That one
>>> package pulled several dependencies on my rig. YMMV.
>>
>> Well, as I said in another post, I do have -fortan in my make.conf and
>> there are no problems.  I do not have programs installed that need a
>> fortran compiler.  And I do not have kde-meta installed; that's a waste
>> of resources.  I only install what I actually need.
>
> You have no programs, that *need* fortran, but it could well be, that you have
> programs installed, that perform better when compiled with a fortran compiler.
> I think of sci-libs/fftw here as an example. It's used by programs like
> blender, imagemagick and maybe some others. The developers of said library use
> fortran, because they benchmarked it. If you disable fortran, you use the
> slower C fallback solution. If you disable fftw in those packages, you get a
> slower implementation too afaik.
> After all, gentoo is a source based distribution. We all already have a couple
> of languages installed. There's a C compiler a standard user will never use.
> There's a C++ compiler only used by programmers. We all have them, only to
> compile programs, that need them.
> Why not enable fortran, even if it's only optional, to get the best of the
> available implementations? In the end it's only one programming language more
> installed on your system.

Because there is absolutely no clue in the USE descriptions that this is 
the "best implementation" or whatever.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 06:35 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose you got the idea by now ;-) Do you need dev-lang/R? If not,
>>> then "emerge -pv --depclean dev-lang/R". Do you need the package(s)
>>> that this brings up? If not, continue --depclean those until you reach
>>> something that has no other dependencies; meaning you reached the top
>>> level. Do you need *that*? If not, unmerge it, then depclean
>>> everything (just "emerge -a --depclean".)
>>>
>>> This should get rid of all stuff you don't actually need/want.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, that leads back to KDE. So, looks like it stays.
>
> And KDE wants Fortran because you have that USE flag enabled in 
> make.conf :-D
>
>

Actually, I didn't have it in there until the update this thread 
references back too.  It was there by default but it was removed by a 
dev and portage puked.  So, maybe I need to do -fortran and see what 
happens.


>>>> Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here. We all know I have to have
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> GCC is a compiler collection. You usually only need gcc and g++.
>>> Fortan, Objective-C, Objective-C++, ADA, Pascal, Java, whatever else
>>> is usually something you don't install unless you know you need it.
>>
>> But gcc is the one that got rebuilt when I changed the USE flag. So, it
>> needs it because the other package needs it and in the end, KDE needs
>> all that stuff. So, the flag is added and I guess it is needed by
>> something I want to keep. Sort of like my GUI and all. ;-)
>
> I'm on KDE too, and it doesn't need it.  Probably because my make.conf 
> explicitly says "-fortran" in it.
>

Mine never had fortran in it at all.  I still don't really know what 
fortran is.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/22/2011 07:58 PM, Dale wrote:
>[...]
> Mine never had fortran in it at all. I still don't really know what
> fortran is.

It's a programming language.  You know, C, C++, stuff like that.  Except 
that it's a zombie-relict from the 1950's that refuses to die because 
people still programming in it are too lazy to learn a proper, more 
modern language :-P

When you enable the fortran USE flag for GCC, you are telling it to 
compile and install the GNU Fortran compiler.  Sometimes USE flags can 
have more dramatic effects than just enabling some extra functionality; 
in this case for example, a whole compiler and supporting runtime 
libraries are built and installed.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 07:58 PM, Dale wrote:
>> [...]
>> Mine never had fortran in it at all. I still don't really know what
>> fortran is.
>
> It's a programming language.  You know, C, C++, stuff like that.  
> Except that it's a zombie-relict from the 1950's that refuses to die 
> because people still programming in it are too lazy to learn a proper, 
> more modern language :-P
>
> When you enable the fortran USE flag for GCC, you are telling it to 
> compile and install the GNU Fortran compiler.  Sometimes USE flags can 
> have more dramatic effects than just enabling some extra 
> functionality; in this case for example, a whole compiler and 
> supporting runtime libraries are built and installed.
>

Well he double hockey sticks.  That's why gcc compiles faster when 
fortran is disabled.  :/   Now I know.  I wasn't even born in 1950 so I 
had no clue.  Dang, that was when puters were made out of vacuum tubes.  
Talk about a old fuddy.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 13:13:03 Dale did opine thusly:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 06/22/2011 07:58 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Mine never had fortran in it at all. I still don't really know
> >> what fortran is.
> > 
> > It's a programming language.  You know, C, C++, stuff like that.
> > Except that it's a zombie-relict from the 1950's that refuses to
> > die because people still programming in it are too lazy to
> > learn a proper, more modern language :-P
> > 
> > When you enable the fortran USE flag for GCC, you are telling it
> > to compile and install the GNU Fortran compiler.  Sometimes USE
> > flags can have more dramatic effects than just enabling some
> > extra functionality; in this case for example, a whole compiler
> > and supporting runtime libraries are built and installed.
> 
> Well he double hockey sticks.  That's why gcc compiles faster when
> fortran is disabled.  :/   Now I know.  I wasn't even born in 1950
> so I had no clue.  Dang, that was when puters were made out of
> vacuum tubes. Talk about a old fuddy.  lol

Fortran put Armstrong on the moon.

NASA wouldn't dare let Windows try that, they take one look at Air 
Traffic Control or nuclear submarines or Aircraft Carriers or even, 
god forbid, Airbus's latest and greatest, and know exactly what NOT to 
do


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 13:13:03 Dale did opine thusly:
>    
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>      
>>> On 06/22/2011 07:58 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>        
>>>> [...]
>>>> Mine never had fortran in it at all. I still don't really know
>>>> what fortran is.
>>>>          
>>> It's a programming language.  You know, C, C++, stuff like that.
>>> Except that it's a zombie-relict from the 1950's that refuses to
>>> die because people still programming in it are too lazy to
>>> learn a proper, more modern language :-P
>>>
>>> When you enable the fortran USE flag for GCC, you are telling it
>>> to compile and install the GNU Fortran compiler.  Sometimes USE
>>> flags can have more dramatic effects than just enabling some
>>> extra functionality; in this case for example, a whole compiler
>>> and supporting runtime libraries are built and installed.
>>>        
>> Well he double hockey sticks.  That's why gcc compiles faster when
>> fortran is disabled.  :/   Now I know.  I wasn't even born in 1950
>> so I had no clue.  Dang, that was when puters were made out of
>> vacuum tubes. Talk about a old fuddy.  lol
>>      
> Fortran put Armstrong on the moon.
>
> NASA wouldn't dare let Windows try that, they take one look at Air
> Traffic Control or nuclear submarines or Aircraft Carriers or even,
> god forbid, Airbus's latest and greatest, and know exactly what NOT to
> do
>
>
>    

I have a calculator I got from Radio Shack when I was in high school.  
It's a EC-4020.  I read it has more computing power than the puters that 
were on Apollo or something to that effect.  It's hard to believe they 
had such whimpy puters but could do so much.  Funny thing is, I'm not 
sure we could go to the moon now.  I know I wouldn't get on one.  Then 
again, I don't fly either.  I have told people that if they see me on a 
plane, close the lid on my coffin.  That's the only way I would get on a 
plane.

It's amazing how far things have come but how far off some things still 
are.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Indi]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Then again, I don't fly either.  I have told people that if they 
> see me on a plane, close the lid on my coffin.  That's the only 
> way I would get on a plane.
> 

You haven't lived until you've been up in a small, underpowered 
ultralight or single engine plane. :)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 18:44:00 Indi did opine thusly:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Then again, I don't fly either.  I have told people that if they
> > see me on a plane, close the lid on my coffin.  That's the only
> > way I would get on a plane.
> 
> You haven't lived until you've been up in a small, underpowered
> ultralight or single engine plane. :)



Or jumped out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft mid-flight

Helicopters are reserved for those with a death wish

;-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:55:10 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Helicopters are reserved for those with a death wish

Unless the helicopter is an air ambulance, not that what I was doing to
require an air ambulance in the first place was particularly sane.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Know thyself.  If you need help, call the C.I.A.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> [110622 20:37]:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:55:10 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
> > Helicopters are reserved for those with a death wish
> 
> Unless the helicopter is an air ambulance, not that what I was doing to
> require an air ambulance in the first place was particularly sane.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Neil Bothwick
> 
> Know thyself.  If you need help, call the C.I.A.

It seemed ironic that a recent training helicopter crash near here
resulted in the survivor being taken off in an air ambulance helicopter.

Though most of those I know of are twin engine turbines so chances are
good you won't lose both engines at once...

Helicopters are for those who are pigheaded enough to want to beat the
air into submission.  :-)

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Neil Bothwick<neil@digimed.co.uk>  [110622 20:37]:
>    
>
> It seemed ironic that a recent training helicopter crash near here
> resulted in the survivor being taken off in an air ambulance helicopter.
>
> Though most of those I know of are twin engine turbines so chances are
> good you won't lose both engines at once...
>
> Helicopters are for those who are pigheaded enough to want to beat the
> air into submission.  :-)
>
> Todd
>
>    

I saw a guy on a TV interview once.  He said the only way a helicopter 
can fly is by brute force.  A airplane wants to fly but a helicopter 
just wants to crash.  He said that can be proven by taking your hands 
off the controls.  Down it goes.

Having twin engines does help tho.  I just don't like the cheapest 
bidder part tho.  I don't usually buy the cheapest part for my car 
either.  That is really true on my brakes.  That I want good stuff for.  
I want good brakes even if the engine runs like crap.  I can always stop 
then get out of the freaking car.  lol   Of course, that is a bad idea 
during a ice storm.  Unless the car is on fire, the safest place is in 
the freaking car.  o_O

Weird huh?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Indi]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:10:34PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> 
> I saw a guy on a TV interview once.  He said the only way a helicopter 
> can fly is by brute force.  A airplane wants to fly but a helicopter 
> just wants to crash.  He said that can be proven by taking your hands 
> off the controls.  Down it goes.
>

True, that's why helicopters are more risky -- especially a home-built
single-engine ultralight helicopter. But the maneuverability is amazing 
in the hands of a well-trained pilot.

> Having twin engines does help tho.  I just don't like the cheapest 
> bidder part tho.  I don't usually buy the cheapest part for my car 
> either.  That is really true on my brakes.  That I want good stuff for.  
> I want good brakes even if the engine runs like crap.  I can always stop 
> then get out of the freaking car.  lol   Of course, that is a bad idea 
> during a ice storm.  Unless the car is on fire, the safest place is in 
> the freaking car.  o_O
> 
> Weird huh?
> 

The only "safe " place in this world is the grave. 
Til you get there, death is always after you. :)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 01:12:55 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:55:10 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Helicopters are reserved for those with a death wish
> 
> Unless the helicopter is an air ambulance, not that what I was doing
> to require an air ambulance in the first place was particularly
> sane.

We won't ask :-)

Heli pilots are insane, but have serious flying skillz.
Interceptor pilots are not even human, but then again if you bolt a 
big enough engine onto a brick, it will fly too.

[I spent 3 happy years on heli and fighter-bomber squadrons. Those 
pilots make us look like saints]



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> [110622 18:59]:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Then again, I don't fly either.  I have told people that if they 
> > see me on a plane, close the lid on my coffin.  That's the only 
> > way I would get on a plane.
> > 
> 
> You haven't lived until you've been up in a small, underpowered 
> ultralight or single engine plane. :)
> 
> -- 
> caveat utilitor 
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 
> 

Or flying a small single-engine helicopter solo...

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Indi]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:06:09AM -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> [110622 18:59]:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > > Then again, I don't fly either.  I have told people that if they 
> > > see me on a plane, close the lid on my coffin.  That's the only 
> > > way I would get on a plane.
> > > 
> > 
> > You haven't lived until you've been up in a small, underpowered 
> > ultralight or single engine plane. :)
> > 
> > -- 
> > caveat utilitor 
> > ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 
> > 
> 
> Or flying a small single-engine helicopter solo...
> 

The "Scorpion 2" helicopter kit ads in my dad's Popular Mechanics mags 
way back in the day made a big impression on me. Way more risky than 
a simple fixed wing or autogyro, and not terribly fuel efficient
either...

They sure do look like a lot of fun though.
:)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 09:09:17 Indi did opine thusly:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:06:09AM -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
> > * Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> [110622 18:59]:
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > > > Then again, I don't fly either.  I have told people that
> > > > if they see me on a plane, close the lid on my coffin. 
> > > > That's the only way I would get on a plane.
> > > 
> > > You haven't lived until you've been up in a small,
> > > underpowered
> > > ultralight or single engine plane. :)
> > 
> > Or flying a small single-engine helicopter solo...
> 
> The "Scorpion 2" helicopter kit ads in my dad's Popular Mechanics
> mags way back in the day made a big impression on me. Way more
> risky than a simple fixed wing or autogyro, and not terribly fuel
> efficient either...
> 
> They sure do look like a lot of fun though.

When I stand on the balcony at work having a smoke, I look straight at 
the only helipad within 30 miles (there is one more in the CBD, but 
it's strictly medical airlift only). Below my feet is the entrance to 
the parking garage.

My house has a flat roof, wouldn't take a lot of effort to erect a 
platform over it.

See where I'm going with this?

I was seriously considering importing a single seater heli kit, they 
are classed as ultralights and do not need a pilot's license. But 
there's an obscure clause in the rules that states ultralights cannot 
be flown within 50m of a dwelling.

So now I have to be content with only going to work on the V-twin bike

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 20:54:03 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> I was seriously considering importing a single seater heli kit, they
> are classed as ultralights and do not need a pilot's license. But
> there's an obscure clause in the rules that states ultralights cannot
> be flown within 50m of a dwelling.
> 
> So now I have to be content with only going to work on the V-twin bike

No, all you need is a pad 50m tall.  :)

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:47:54 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011 20:54:03 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I was seriously considering importing a single seater heli kit,
> > they are classed as ultralights and do not need a pilot's
> > license. But there's an obscure clause in the rules that states
> > ultralights cannot be flown within 50m of a dwelling.
> > 
> > So now I have to be content with only going to work on the
> > V-twin bike
> 
> No, all you need is a pad 50m tall.  :)

Brilliant! I hadn't thought of that! Must be getting old :-)

Or I could just two birds one stone:

http://www.hover-bike.com/


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:41:04 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> I could just two birds one stone:
> 
> http://www.hover-bike.com/

Hmm. I'd like to see one more figure: dBA!

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Indi]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:47:54 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> > On Thursday 23 June 2011 20:54:03 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > I was seriously considering importing a single seater heli kit,
> > > they are classed as ultralights and do not need a pilot's
> > > license. But there's an obscure clause in the rules that states
> > > ultralights cannot be flown within 50m of a dwelling.
> > > 
> > > So now I have to be content with only going to work on the
> > > V-twin bike
> > 
> > No, all you need is a pad 50m tall.  :)
> 
> Brilliant! I hadn't thought of that! Must be getting old :-)
> 
> Or I could just two birds one stone:
> 
> http://www.hover-bike.com/
> 

I saw that before and got really excited until it dawned on me there's
no way that thing can be controlled the way it's built. :)
No doubt why the only videos he seems to have of it "hovering" it's
tethered. Otherwise it'd surely kill somebody.

He also claims it will achieve altitudes up to 10k feet, which
obviously would require generating a "cushion of air" 10k feet tall.
Because being a hovercraft it's got fans, not rotors.

Or have I missed something?

-- 
caveat utilitor

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[pk]

On 2011-06-22 19:36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> It's a programming language.  You know, C, C++, stuff like that.  Except
> that it's a zombie-relict from the 1950's that refuses to die because
> people still programming in it are too lazy to learn a proper, more
> modern language :-P

It refuses to die because it's still very useful in certain niche areas
(hpc, numerical computing etc.) where "modern" languages doesn't cut
it... :-)

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:23:58 +0200, pk wrote:

> It refuses to die because it's still very useful in certain niche areas
> (hpc, numerical computing etc.) where "modern" languages doesn't cut
> it... :-)

Or so the Fortran programmers with jobs to protect will tell you...

You'll be telling us there's still a place for Cobol next :-O


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Mmmm, trouble with grammer have I, yes?" - Yoda

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:08 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:23:58 +0200, pk wrote:
> > It refuses to die because it's still very useful in certain
> > niche areas (hpc, numerical computing etc.) where "modern"
> > languages doesn't cut it... :-)
> 
> Or so the Fortran programmers with jobs to protect will tell you...
> 
> You'll be telling us there's still a place for Cobol next :-O

Of course there's a place for Cobol, a classic one is in the bank my 
gf does data warehousing at.

There's not a single soul in the entire bank that is willing to sign 
off on a project to replace the Cobol that has run 
justfinethanksverymuch for 25+ years


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Robin Atwood]

On Thursday 23 Jun 2011, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:08 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:23:58 +0200, pk wrote:
> > > It refuses to die because it's still very useful in certain
> > > niche areas (hpc, numerical computing etc.) where "modern"
> > > languages doesn't cut it... :-)
> > 
> > Or so the Fortran programmers with jobs to protect will tell you...
> > 
> > You'll be telling us there's still a place for Cobol next :-O
> 
> Of course there's a place for Cobol, a classic one is in the bank my
> gf does data warehousing at.
> 
> There's not a single soul in the entire bank that is willing to sign
> off on a project to replace the Cobol that has run
> justfinethanksverymuch for 25+ years

It's the latest thing! http://visualcobol.microfocus.com/

-Robin
-- 

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 21:04:45 Robin Atwood did opine thusly:
> On Thursday 23 Jun 2011, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:08 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:23:58 +0200, pk wrote:
> > > > It refuses to die because it's still very useful in
> > > > certain
> > > > niche areas (hpc, numerical computing etc.) where
> > > > "modern"
> > > > languages doesn't cut it... :-)
> > > 
> > > Or so the Fortran programmers with jobs to protect will tell
> > > you...
> > > 
> > > You'll be telling us there's still a place for Cobol next
> > > :-O
> > 
> > Of course there's a place for Cobol, a classic one is in the
> > bank my gf does data warehousing at.
> > 
> > There's not a single soul in the entire bank that is willing to
> > sign off on a project to replace the Cobol that has run
> > justfinethanksverymuch for 25+ years
> 
> It's the latest thing! http://visualcobol.microfocus.com/

I see it this way:

Cobol:bank::perl:me

Everyone loves to bash both languages but without them absolutely 
nothing works right :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[pk]

On 2011-06-23 21:43, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Of course there's a place for Cobol, a classic one is in the bank my 
> gf does data warehousing at.
> 
> There's not a single soul in the entire bank that is willing to sign 
> off on a project to replace the Cobol that has run 
> justfinethanksverymuch for 25+ years

To Neil:
What Alan said... :-D

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:52:48 +0200, pk wrote:

> To Neil:
> What Alan said... :-D

To both of you, let me introduce you to the concept of sarcasm...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary
notation and those who don't.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[pk]

On 2011-06-24 11:31, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> To both of you, let me introduce you to the concept of sarcasm...

Oh well... I'm not entirely unfamiliar with that concept, although I
admit that it escaped me this time. Perhaps, it has something to do with
how it was presented? ;-)

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 458 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:14:13 +0200, pk wrote:

> > To both of you, let me introduce you to the concept of sarcasm...  
> 
> Oh well... I'm not entirely unfamiliar with that concept, although I
> admit that it escaped me this time. Perhaps, it has something to do with
> how it was presented? ;-)

<sarcasm>sarcasm is pointless when presented like this</sarcasm>.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

ERROR #0915: MONITOR NOT PRESENT. CLICK ON OK TO CONTINUE.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:16:08PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:23:58 +0200, pk wrote:
> 
> > It refuses to die because it's still very useful in certain niche areas
> > (hpc, numerical computing etc.) where "modern" languages doesn't cut
> > it... :-)
> 
> Or so the Fortran programmers with jobs to protect will tell you...

  Actually, it was what non-professional programmers used before
computer spreadsheet programs existed.  It was just the thing for
crunching numbers and text.  It was because it was used by
non-professional programmers that so many old Fortran programs are
spaghetti code.  A properly-written, structured Fortran program is quite
usable and easily followed.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[walt]

On 06/23/2011 11:16 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> You'll be telling us there's still a place for Cobol next :-O

Never thought to look before, but:

#eix cobol
* dev-lang/open-cobol
     Available versions:  (~)1.0 {berkdb nls readline}
     Homepage:            http://www.opencobol.org/
     Description:         an open-source COBOL compiler

* dev-lang/tinycobol
     Available versions:  0.64 (~)0.65.9
     Homepage:            http://tiny-cobol.sourceforge.net/
     Description:         COBOL for linux

I learned something today :)

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 18:23:58 pk wrote:
> On 2011-06-22 19:36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > It's a programming language.  You know, C, C++, stuff like that. 
> > Except that it's a zombie-relict from the 1950's that refuses to die
> > because people still programming in it are too lazy to learn a proper,
> > more modern language :-P
> 
> It refuses to die because it's still very useful in certain niche areas
> (hpc, numerical computing etc.) where "modern" languages doesn't cut
> it... :-)

"FORmula TRANslator". it keeps your lights on, as likely as not. Last I 
looked, electricity power grids were kept alive with fortran doing the 
calculations.

Mind you, I am going back a little way.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> [110622 11:53]:
> On 06/22/2011 06:35 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >>
> >> I suppose you got the idea by now ;-) Do you need dev-lang/R? If not,
> >> then "emerge -pv --depclean dev-lang/R". Do you need the package(s)
> >> that this brings up? If not, continue --depclean those until you reach
> >> something that has no other dependencies; meaning you reached the top
> >> level. Do you need *that*? If not, unmerge it, then depclean
> >> everything (just "emerge -a --depclean".)
> >>
> >> This should get rid of all stuff you don't actually need/want.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well, that leads back to KDE. So, looks like it stays.
> 
> And KDE wants Fortran because you have that USE flag enabled in 
> make.conf :-D

Well, I don't have fortran use enabled

mail-proxy ~ # euse -i fortran
global use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
[-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)

local use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
no matching entries found

However, kde-base/kde-meta-4.6.4 pulls in kde-base/kdeedu-meta-4.6.4
which pulls in kde-base/kantor which pulls in dev-lang/R (since my profile
has the R use flag enabled) which pulls in virtual/blas which pulls in
sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 which then craps out since I don't have
the fortran use flag enabled.

My solution is to force -R in make.conf

> 
> 
> >>> Well, it appeared to only affect gcc here. We all know I have to have
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> GCC is a compiler collection. You usually only need gcc and g++.
> >> Fortan, Objective-C, Objective-C++, ADA, Pascal, Java, whatever else
> >> is usually something you don't install unless you know you need it.
> >
> > But gcc is the one that got rebuilt when I changed the USE flag. So, it
> > needs it because the other package needs it and in the end, KDE needs
> > all that stuff. So, the flag is added and I guess it is needed by
> > something I want to keep. Sort of like my GUI and all. ;-)
> 
> I'm on KDE too, and it doesn't need it.  Probably because my make.conf 
> explicitly says "-fortran" in it.
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Todd Goodman wrote:
>
> Well, I don't have fortran use enabled
>
> mail-proxy ~ # euse -i fortran
> global use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> [-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>
> local use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> no matching entries found
>
> However, kde-base/kde-meta-4.6.4 pulls in kde-base/kdeedu-meta-4.6.4
> which pulls in kde-base/kantor which pulls in dev-lang/R (since my profile
> has the R use flag enabled) which pulls in virtual/blas which pulls in
> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 which then craps out since I don't have
> the fortran use flag enabled.
>
> My solution is to force -R in make.conf
>
>    

Let me make a note of that, in make.conf of course.  ;-)

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Todd Goodman wrote:
>>
>> Well, I don't have fortran use enabled
>>
>> mail-proxy ~ # euse -i fortran
>> global use flags (searching: fortran)
>> ************************************************************
>> [-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>>
>> local use flags (searching: fortran)
>> ************************************************************
>> no matching entries found
>>
>> However, kde-base/kde-meta-4.6.4 pulls in kde-base/kdeedu-meta-4.6.4
>> which pulls in kde-base/kantor which pulls in dev-lang/R (since my 
>> profile
>> has the R use flag enabled) which pulls in virtual/blas which pulls in
>> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 which then craps out since I don't have
>> the fortran use flag enabled.
>>
>> My solution is to force -R in make.conf
>>
>
> Let me make a note of that, in make.conf of course.  ;-)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

When I did that, it complained that cantor was built with no backend.  
Did you get the same thing?  It said this here:

WARN (postinst)

You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
To have this application functional, please do one of below:
     # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
     # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima

So, I did the later and it needs to emerge several packages that I 
didn't have before.  Looks like I can either have a bit of bloat on one 
side or a bit of bloat on the other side.  o_O

I mention just in case you didn't notice the message and then something 
borks on next login.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> [110622 14:45]:
> Dale wrote:
> > Todd Goodman wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, I don't have fortran use enabled
> >>
> >> mail-proxy ~ # euse -i fortran
> >> global use flags (searching: fortran)
> >> ************************************************************
> >> [-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
> >>
> >> local use flags (searching: fortran)
> >> ************************************************************
> >> no matching entries found
> >>
> >> However, kde-base/kde-meta-4.6.4 pulls in kde-base/kdeedu-meta-4.6.4
> >> which pulls in kde-base/kantor which pulls in dev-lang/R (since my 
> >> profile
> >> has the R use flag enabled) which pulls in virtual/blas which pulls in
> >> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 which then craps out since I don't have
> >> the fortran use flag enabled.
> >>
> >> My solution is to force -R in make.conf
> >>
> >
> > Let me make a note of that, in make.conf of course.  ;-)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
> >
> 
> When I did that, it complained that cantor was built with no backend.  
> Did you get the same thing?  It said this here:
> 
> WARN (postinst)
> 
> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
>      # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
>      # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima
> 
> So, I did the later and it needs to emerge several packages that I 
> didn't have before.  Looks like I can either have a bit of bloat on one 
> side or a bit of bloat on the other side.  o_O
> 
> I mention just in case you didn't notice the message and then something 
> borks on next login.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Yes, it complained about the same thing.  Since I don't know what cantor
is I figure I don't much care if it has a backend or not.  :-)

Seriously, I haven't noticed any issues yet not having the backend.

If I find something broken I need then I'll do as you did.

Thanks,

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  [110622 14:45]:
>    
>>
>> When I did that, it complained that cantor was built with no backend.
>> Did you get the same thing?  It said this here:
>>
>> WARN (postinst)
>>
>> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
>> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
>>       # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
>>       # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima
>>
>> So, I did the later and it needs to emerge several packages that I
>> didn't have before.  Looks like I can either have a bit of bloat on one
>> side or a bit of bloat on the other side.  o_O
>>
>> I mention just in case you didn't notice the message and then something
>> borks on next login.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>      
> Yes, it complained about the same thing.  Since I don't know what cantor
> is I figure I don't much care if it has a backend or not.  :-)
>
> Seriously, I haven't noticed any issues yet not having the backend.
>
> If I find something broken I need then I'll do as you did.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Todd
>
>
>    

root@fireball / # eix cantor
[I] kde-base/cantor
      Available versions:  (4) 4.6.2{tbz2} 4.6.3{tbz2} (~)4.6.4{tbz2}
         {+R aqua debug +handbook kdeenablefinal kdeprefix ps}
      Installed versions:  4.6.4(4){tbz2}(01:24:34 PM 
06/22/2011)(handbook -R -aqua -debug -kdeenablefinal -ps)
      Homepage:            http://www.kde.org/
      Description:         KDE4 interface for doing mathematics and 
scientific computing

root@fireball / #

You may not need it unless you jump into the menu and go to Education > 
Mathematics > Cantor.  I don't even know how it works so if you are the 
same as me, you won't need it.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:34:35 -0500, Dale wrote:

> root@fireball / # eix cantor
> [I] kde-base/cantor
>       Available versions:  (4) 4.6.2{tbz2} 4.6.3{tbz2} (~)4.6.4{tbz2}
>          {+R aqua debug +handbook kdeenablefinal kdeprefix ps}
>       Installed versions:  4.6.4(4){tbz2}(01:24:34 PM 
> 06/22/2011)(handbook -R -aqua -debug -kdeenablefinal -ps)
>       Homepage:            http://www.kde.org/
>       Description:         KDE4 interface for doing mathematics and 
> scientific computing
> 
> root@fireball / #
> 
> You may not need it unless you jump into the menu and go to Education > 
> Mathematics > Cantor.  I don't even know how it works so if you are the 
> same as me, you won't need it.

So why are you installing it, and all its dependencies, on the one hand,
and complaining about bloat on the other? Surely installing stuff you
don't need is the very definition of bloat.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Do hungry crows have ravenous appetites?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:34:35 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> root@fireball / # eix cantor
>> [I] kde-base/cantor
>>        Available versions:  (4) 4.6.2{tbz2} 4.6.3{tbz2} (~)4.6.4{tbz2}
>>           {+R aqua debug +handbook kdeenablefinal kdeprefix ps}
>>        Installed versions:  4.6.4(4){tbz2}(01:24:34 PM
>> 06/22/2011)(handbook -R -aqua -debug -kdeenablefinal -ps)
>>        Homepage:            http://www.kde.org/
>>        Description:         KDE4 interface for doing mathematics and
>> scientific computing
>>
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> You may not need it unless you jump into the menu and go to Education>
>> Mathematics>  Cantor.  I don't even know how it works so if you are the
>> same as me, you won't need it.
>>      
> So why are you installing it, and all its dependencies, on the one hand,
> and complaining about bloat on the other? Surely installing stuff you
> don't need is the very definition of bloat.
>
>    

But it installed stuff either way.  Instread of ABD, I got WXYZ because 
of dependencies.  It's not that I want them, it's that portage needs 
them to make a package that I do want happy.  This reminds me of the six 
of one or half a dozen of the other.  This may be nine of one tho.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:03:32 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > So why are you installing it, and all its dependencies, on the one
> > hand, and complaining about bloat on the other? Surely installing
> > stuff you don't need is the very definition of bloat.

> But it installed stuff either way.  Instread of ABD, I got WXYZ because 
> of dependencies.  It's not that I want them, it's that portage needs 
> them to make a package that I do want happy.  This reminds me of the
> six of one or half a dozen of the other.  This may be nine of one tho.
> lol

My question was why are you installing cantor if you don't need it?

You don't use it, you don't need it, it drags in a bunch of dependencies
that require other packages to install more files too, yet you still want
it there.

Hint: I don't have cantor installed and the sky hasn't fallen in, at
least not yet.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

This is as bad as it can get; but don't bet on it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:03:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>>> So why are you installing it, and all its dependencies, on the one
>>> hand, and complaining about bloat on the other? Surely installing
>>> stuff you don't need is the very definition of bloat.
>>>        
>    
>> But it installed stuff either way.  Instread of ABD, I got WXYZ because
>> of dependencies.  It's not that I want them, it's that portage needs
>> them to make a package that I do want happy.  This reminds me of the
>> six of one or half a dozen of the other.  This may be nine of one tho.
>> lol
>>      
> My question was why are you installing cantor if you don't need it?
>
> You don't use it, you don't need it, it drags in a bunch of dependencies
> that require other packages to install more files too, yet you still want
> it there.
>
> Hint: I don't have cantor installed and the sky hasn't fallen in, at
> least not yet.
>
>    

Oh, I see.  It was pulled in by kde-meta.  I know I can have KDE other 
ways but it is much easier to emerge kde-meta than to emerge < some huge 
amount of packages >.  There are times when I am looking through the 
menu and find something interesting that I didn't know about before.  So 
far, Cantor isn't one of them.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:49:45 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > My question was why are you installing cantor if you don't need it?

> Oh, I see.  It was pulled in by kde-meta.  I know I can have KDE other 
> ways but it is much easier to emerge kde-meta than to emerge < some
> huge amount of packages >.

If you consider spending a couple of days farting around with fortran to
be "much easier"... :P


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Walk softly and carry a fully charged phazer.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:49:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>>> My question was why are you installing cantor if you don't need it?
>>>        
>    
>> Oh, I see.  It was pulled in by kde-meta.  I know I can have KDE other
>> ways but it is much easier to emerge kde-meta than to emerge<  some
>> huge amount of packages>.
>>      
> If you consider spending a couple of days farting around with fortran to
> be "much easier"... :P
>
>
>    

Well, it was working before just fine.  I was able to plead ignorance 
until the dev changed the USE flags on me.  That's when it hit the fan.  
I was better off being ignorant on this one.  I could have left it the 
way it was and looking back, maybe I should have.  I dunno.

Ignorance is bliss sometimes.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 13:09:53 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:49:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > > My question was why are you installing cantor if you don't
> > > need it?
> > 
> > Oh, I see.  It was pulled in by kde-meta.  I know I can have KDE
> > other ways but it is much easier to emerge kde-meta than to
> > emerge < some huge amount of packages >.
> 
> If you consider spending a couple of days farting around with
> fortran to be "much easier"... :P

I use sets for this. I want KDE but not all of it, so I have a set 
with just the -meta packages I want:

$ cat /etc/portage/sets/alan-kde                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
kde-base/kdeadmin-meta
kde-base/kdeartwork-meta
kde-base/kdebase-meta
kde-base/kdebase-runtime-meta
kde-base/kdegraphics-meta
kde-base/kdemultimedia-meta
kde-base/kdenetwork-meta
kde-base/kdepim-meta
kde-base/kdeutils-meta



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 672 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:45:36 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > If you consider spending a couple of days farting around with
> > fortran to be "much easier"... :P  
> 
> I use sets for this. I want KDE but not all of it, so I have a set 
> with just the -meta packages I want:

I do similar, except I'm even more of a control freak than you, so my
kde4 set contains onl;y a couple of meta-packages, the rest it individual
packages.

% wc -l /etc/portage/sets/kde4
83 /etc/portage/sets/kde4

Sad, I know :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A computer scientist is someone who, when told to "Go to Hell,"
sees the "go to," rather than the destination, as harmful.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 21:35:21 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:45:36 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > If you consider spending a couple of days farting around
> > > with
> > > fortran to be "much easier"... :P
> > 
> > I use sets for this. I want KDE but not all of it, so I have a
> > set
> 
> > with just the -meta packages I want:
> I do similar, except I'm even more of a control freak than you, so
> my kde4 set contains onl;y a couple of meta-packages, the rest it
> individual packages.
> 
> % wc -l /etc/portage/sets/kde4
> 83 /etc/portage/sets/kde4
> 
> Sad, I know :(

Wow, how do you maintain that lot and keep it all straight?

KDE devs love adding and removing and renaming stuff between minor 
versions, mostly just for the hell of it. You could end up with 
KDE-4.2 packages in there if you don't keep an eye on it :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 931 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:06:28 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > I do similar, except I'm even more of a control freak than you, so
> > my kde4 set contains onl;y a couple of meta-packages, the rest it
> > individual packages.
> > 
> > % wc -l /etc/portage/sets/kde4
> > 83 /etc/portage/sets/kde4
> > 
> > Sad, I know :(  
> 
> Wow, how do you maintain that lot and keep it all straight?
> 
> KDE devs love adding and removing and renaming stuff between minor 
> versions, mostly just for the hell of it. You could end up with 
> KDE-4.2 packages in there if you don't keep an eye on it :-)

The KDE ebuilds barf if you try to mix versions, if a package is removed
or renamed from a later release, portage lets me know!

If means I don't get to know about any new additions, but I can read
about those on kde.org


-- 
Neil Bothwick

You have the capacity to learn from mistakes. You'll learn a lot today.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> [110622 17:40]:
> Todd Goodman wrote:
> > * Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  [110622 14:45]:
> >    
> >>
> >> When I did that, it complained that cantor was built with no backend.
> >> Did you get the same thing?  It said this here:
> >>
> >> WARN (postinst)
> >>
> >> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
> >> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
> >>       # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
> >>       # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima
> >>
> >> So, I did the later and it needs to emerge several packages that I
> >> didn't have before.  Looks like I can either have a bit of bloat on one
> >> side or a bit of bloat on the other side.  o_O
> >>
> >> I mention just in case you didn't notice the message and then something
> >> borks on next login.
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> :-)  :-)
> >>      
> > Yes, it complained about the same thing.  Since I don't know what cantor
> > is I figure I don't much care if it has a backend or not.  :-)
> >
> > Seriously, I haven't noticed any issues yet not having the backend.
> >
> > If I find something broken I need then I'll do as you did.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> >    
> 
> root@fireball / # eix cantor
> [I] kde-base/cantor
>       Available versions:  (4) 4.6.2{tbz2} 4.6.3{tbz2} (~)4.6.4{tbz2}
>          {+R aqua debug +handbook kdeenablefinal kdeprefix ps}
>       Installed versions:  4.6.4(4){tbz2}(01:24:34 PM 
> 06/22/2011)(handbook -R -aqua -debug -kdeenablefinal -ps)
>       Homepage:            http://www.kde.org/
>       Description:         KDE4 interface for doing mathematics and 
> scientific computing
> 
> root@fireball / #
> 
> You may not need it unless you jump into the menu and go to Education > 
> Mathematics > Cantor.  I don't even know how it works so if you are the 
> same as me, you won't need it.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Yeah, real doubtful as the machine is typically used to remote shell
into with a handlful of graphic apps started with a display on the
remote machine I'm sshing in from.  :-)

Thanks,

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/22/2011 2:35 PM, Dale wrote:

> When I did that, it complained that cantor was built with no backend. 
> Did you get the same thing?  It said this here:
> 
> WARN (postinst)
> 
> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
>     # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
>     # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima

The odds of you ever needing to use cantor are practically nil. And if
you did, you'd probably already have R installed and know what FORTRAN
was.  So, don't worry about it.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 6/22/2011 2:35 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> When I did that, it complained that cantor was built with no backend.
>> Did you get the same thing?  It said this here:
>>
>> WARN (postinst)
>>
>> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
>> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
>>      # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
>>      # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima
>>      
> The odds of you ever needing to use cantor are practically nil. And if
> you did, you'd probably already have R installed and know what FORTRAN
> was.  So, don't worry about it.
>
> --Mike
>
>
>    

I never noticed it being there.  So, naw I don't need it.  Good ole 
kde-meta pulled it in tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/23/2011 1:04 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> On 6/22/2011 2:35 PM, Dale wrote:

>>> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
>>> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
>>>      # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
>>>      # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima

>> The odds of you ever needing to use cantor are practically nil. And if
>> you did, you'd probably already have R installed and know what FORTRAN
>> was.  So, don't worry about it.

> I never noticed it being there.  So, naw I don't need it.  Good ole
> kde-meta pulled it in tho.

My point was, you can install cantor without R (or maxima) and it will
complain loudly that "I'm installing myself broken!"... but it *will*
install. And if you never run it, you never need R, thus you never need
+fortran, and your gcc will be much happier.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 1:04 AM, Dale wrote:
>    
>> Mike Edenfield wrote:
>>      
>>> On 6/22/2011 2:35 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>        
>    
>>>> You have decided to build cantor with no backend.
>>>> To have this application functional, please do one of below:
>>>>       # emerge -va1 '='kde-base/cantor-4.6.4 with 'R' USE flag enabled
>>>>       # emerge -vaDu sci-mathematics/maxima
>>>>          
>    
>>> The odds of you ever needing to use cantor are practically nil. And if
>>> you did, you'd probably already have R installed and know what FORTRAN
>>> was.  So, don't worry about it.
>>>        
>    
>> I never noticed it being there.  So, naw I don't need it.  Good ole
>> kde-meta pulled it in tho.
>>      
> My point was, you can install cantor without R (or maxima) and it will
> complain loudly that "I'm installing myself broken!"... but it *will*
> install. And if you never run it, you never need R, thus you never need
> +fortran, and your gcc will be much happier.
>
> --Mike
>
>
>    

I was hoping to trim a little fat not break things.  I may never need 
cantor but if I do, I would like it to work without me having to figure 
out why it is broke.  Plus, next time a upgrade comes along, I got 
issues again.  It's going to pull in a update that fails to compile and 
its going to upset me greatly, much more so than having fortran or 
whatever installed.

Maybe you wasn't around during the GREAT hal and xorg mess I ran into.  
Trust me, it wasn't steam, it was flames.  I would like to avoid that.  
I wanted to wring that nerds neck for rendering my keyboard and rat 
useless.  :-@

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 01:15:04PM -0500, Dale wrote
> Todd Goodman wrote:

> > My solution is to force -R in make.conf
> >
> >    
> 
> Let me make a note of that, in make.conf of course.  ;-)

  Years ago, I changed to starting my USE line with "-*" and adding what
I needed, either in /etc/make.conf or in /etc/package.use.  This was
right after ipv6 was added to the defaults.  The ipv6 fiasco was "an
interesting experience", to say the least.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I'm on KDE too, and it doesn't need it.  Probably because my make.conf
> explicitly says "-fortran" in it.
>
>
>

For kicks I decided to give -fortran a try. I find it interesting that
with Fortran installed using either the fortran flag in package.use,
or just not setting the flag at all, I apparently do not need the c++
libraries that I do need when I choose -fortran. However it seems that
-fortran doesn't eliminate the need for installing a Fortran compiler.
It simply shifted it from the GNU gcc Fortran package to the Intel
Fortran Compiler (dev-lang/ifc)

c2stable ~ # emerge -pvDuN @world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] sys-libs/libstdc++-v3-3.3.6  USE="(multilib) nls" 23,459 kB
[ebuild  N     ] virtual/libstdc++-3.3  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-compat-20100611
USE="(multilib)" 930 kB
[ebuild  N     ] dev-lang/ifc-10.0.026-r1  40,378 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) nls
nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran*
-gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp
-objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla (-n32%) (-n64%)" 61,647 kB

Total: 5 packages (4 new, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 126,413 kB
c2stable ~ #

I have a virtual/fortran driven AFACT through any number of dependencies:

c2stable ~ # eix -I fortran
[I] virtual/fortran
     Available versions:  0 {openmp}
     Installed versions:  0(06:12:54 AM 06/22/2011)(openmp)
     Description:         Virtual for Fortran Compiler

c2stable ~ # eix -Ic fortran
[I] virtual/fortran (0@06/22/2011): Virtual for Fortran Compiler
c2stable ~ # equery depends fortran
 * These packages depend on fortran:
dev-python/numpy-1.6.0 (lapack ? virtual/fortran)
sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 (virtual/fortran)
c2stable ~ # equery depends numpy
 * These packages depend on numpy:
dev-python/pygtk-2.22.0-r1 (dev-python/numpy)
c2stable ~ # equery depends pygtk
 * These packages depend on pygtk:
dev-python/pygtksourceview-2.10.1 (>=dev-python/pygtk-2.8:2)
dev-python/twisted-11.0.0 (gtk ? >=dev-python/pygtk-1.99)
dev-vcs/git-1.7.3.4-r1 (gtk ? >=dev-python/pygtk-2.8)
x11-misc/driconf-0.9.1-r1 (>=dev-python/pygtk-2.4:2)
c2stable ~ # equery depends blas-reference
 * These packages depend on blas-reference:
virtual/blas-1.0 (sci-libs/blas-reference)
c2stable ~ # equery depends virtual/blas
 * These packages depend on virtual/blas:
dev-lang/R-2.12.2 (virtual/blas)
c2stable ~ #

In my case I'm sticking with the gcc fortran package as it's the devil I know...

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> For kicks I decided to give -fortran a try. I find it interesting that
> with Fortran installed using either the fortran flag in package.use,
> or just not setting the flag at all, I apparently do not need the c++
> libraries that I do need when I choose -fortran. However it seems that
> -fortran doesn't eliminate the need for installing a Fortran compiler.
> It simply shifted it from the GNU gcc Fortran package to the Intel
> Fortran Compiler (dev-lang/ifc)
>
> c2stable ~ # emerge -pvDuN @world
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N     ] sys-libs/libstdc++-v3-3.3.6  USE="(multilib) nls" 23,459 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] virtual/libstdc++-3.3  0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-compat-20100611
> USE="(multilib)" 930 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] dev-lang/ifc-10.0.026-r1  40,378 kB
> [ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) nls
> nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran*
> -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp
> -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla (-n32%) (-n64%)" 61,647 kB
>
> Total: 5 packages (4 new, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 126,413 kB
> c2stable ~ #
>
> I have a virtual/fortran driven AFACT through any number of dependencies:
>
> c2stable ~ # eix -I fortran
> [I] virtual/fortran
>       Available versions:  0 {openmp}
>       Installed versions:  0(06:12:54 AM 06/22/2011)(openmp)
>       Description:         Virtual for Fortran Compiler
>
> c2stable ~ # eix -Ic fortran
> [I] virtual/fortran (0@06/22/2011): Virtual for Fortran Compiler
> c2stable ~ # equery depends fortran
>   * These packages depend on fortran:
> dev-python/numpy-1.6.0 (lapack ? virtual/fortran)
> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 (virtual/fortran)
> c2stable ~ # equery depends numpy
>   * These packages depend on numpy:
> dev-python/pygtk-2.22.0-r1 (dev-python/numpy)
> c2stable ~ # equery depends pygtk
>   * These packages depend on pygtk:
> dev-python/pygtksourceview-2.10.1 (>=dev-python/pygtk-2.8:2)
> dev-python/twisted-11.0.0 (gtk ?>=dev-python/pygtk-1.99)
> dev-vcs/git-1.7.3.4-r1 (gtk ?>=dev-python/pygtk-2.8)
> x11-misc/driconf-0.9.1-r1 (>=dev-python/pygtk-2.4:2)
> c2stable ~ # equery depends blas-reference
>   * These packages depend on blas-reference:
> virtual/blas-1.0 (sci-libs/blas-reference)
> c2stable ~ # equery depends virtual/blas
>   * These packages depend on virtual/blas:
> dev-lang/R-2.12.2 (virtual/blas)
> c2stable ~ #
>
> In my case I'm sticking with the gcc fortran package as it's the devil I know...
>
> - Mark
>
>
>    

I emerge -C ifc and revdep-rebuild rebuilt some stuff but it is gone 
now.  So, you may have to work with it but it *might* be removable too.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I emerge -C ifc and revdep-rebuild rebuilt some stuff but it is gone now.
>  So, you may have to work with it but it *might* be removable too.
>
> Dale

Hi Dale,
   For me this was more about following along with the thread and
learning about this flag. I had no real intention of changing
anything. I do use R in Windows & sometimes in Linux so apparently I
need a Fortran compiler. I see no advantage and many disadvantages to
switching to ifc from gcc-fortran so I'll just leave things alone.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[pk]

On 2011-06-22 17:35, Dale wrote:

> Well, that leads back to KDE.  So, looks like it stays.

R is a mathematical language similar to Matlab/Octave... only
specialized for statistical computing. I assume if something in KDE is
using that it must be optional; check your USE flags.

HTH

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/22/2011 11:35 AM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>> I suppose you got the idea by now ;-)  Do you need dev-lang/R?  If
>> not, then "emerge -pv --depclean dev-lang/R".  Do you need the
>> package(s) that this brings up?  If not, continue --depclean those
>> until you reach something that has no other dependencies; meaning you
>> reached the top level.  Do you need *that*?  If not, unmerge it, then
>> depclean everything (just "emerge -a --depclean".)
>>
>> This should get rid of all stuff you don't actually need/want.
>>
>>
> 
> Well, that leads back to KDE.  So, looks like it stays.

Ah. I remember KDE trying to pull in R once before.

$ /etc/portage/package/use/kde
kde-base/cantor -R

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/22/2011 9:33 AM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 02:18 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

>>>> Uninstall sci-libs/blas-reference I guess. And probably whatever
>>>> depends on it. Please do an "emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference" and
>>>> post the output so we can see what's pulling it as a dep on your
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the output:
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean blas-reference
>>>
>>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>>> sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 pulled in by:
>>> virtual/blas-1.0
>>
>> OK, that didn't help.  Try: emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas
>>
>>
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> root@fireball / # emerge -pv --depclean virtual/blas
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
>   virtual/blas-1.0 pulled in by:
>     dev-lang/R-2.10.1

I think the point we're trying to arrive at here is why you need a
FORTRAN compiler installed in the first place. Given that you didn't
even know you needed one until recently, it seems odd that you've
installed packages that require f77 to build.

Did you install R on purpose? If not, what pulled that in, and did you
install *that* on purpose?

Odds are one of your 1.5quadrillion USE flags is pulling in FORTRAN when
you don't even need it.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:34:17 Mike Edenfield wrote:

> Odds are one of your 1.5quadrillion USE flags is pulling in FORTRAN when
> you don't even need it.

It may not be. I have only four USE flags in make.conf, and still I have the 
same fortran requirement as Dale.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Indi]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 06:18:49AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> 
> To think people wonder why my USE line is so big.  I keep having to add 
> stuff when portage pukes but portage never tells me when one has fell 
> off the reservation and needs to be removed. < sighs >  Over the years, 
> it adds up.
> 

I'm a bit surprised more people here haven't embraced package.use.
It really allows for a high degree of fine tuning, and without it 
the system would be horribly bloated like most other linux distros.
In fact, USE flags are (IMO) what sets gentoo apart and it's one of 
the the main reasons I switched to gentoo from FreeBSD for my main 
systems...

The first time I tried gentoo ithough I was utterly defeated by my 
lack of understanding of USE flags. Then I read the handbook and it 
all came together like magic. :)

IMO the USE line in make.conf really should only contain the universal 
stuff you can't live without, specifying everything else on a per
package basis is what makes it possible to run a system which is at once
full-featured and lean.

As with everything in life, YMMV.
:)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:25:21 Indi wrote:

> IMO the USE line in make.conf really should only contain the universal
> stuff you can't live without, specifying everything else on a per
> package basis is what makes it possible to run a system which is at once
> full-featured and lean.

My method is to put a USE flag into make.conf if it's described in use.desc; 
otherwise it goes into package.use if it's in use.local.desc.

Seems to keep me out of trouble most of the time.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:18:48 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> My method is to put a USE flag into make.conf if it's described in
> use.desc; otherwise it goes into package.use if it's in use.local.desc.

I use that as a general rule too, although there is the situation where a
flag moves from local to global.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> stuff.
>
> Dale

This is my one strange, mystery global use flag. It's been turned on
in make.conf on every Gentoo machine I've run since I started with
Gentoo in 2002. I've been paranoid to turn it off! :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1488 bytes --]

On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 14:29:58 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> 
> > Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> > fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> > stuff.
> > 
> > Dale
> 
> This is my one strange, mystery global use flag. It's been turned on
> in make.conf on every Gentoo machine I've run since I started with
> Gentoo in 2002. I've been paranoid to turn it off! :-)

What is your make.profile?

Here it is not set:

$ euse -i fortran
global use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
[-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)

local use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
no matching entries found


Although gcc seems to have it hardcoded:

$ euse -I fortran
global use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
[-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)

Installed packages matching this USE flag: 
sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5

local use flags (searching: fortran)
************************************************************
no matching entries found


$ ls -la /etc/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 56 Dec 16  2010 /etc/make.profile -> 
../usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 14:29:58 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> > Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>> > fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
>> > stuff.
>> >
>> > Dale
>>
>> This is my one strange, mystery global use flag. It's been turned on
>> in make.conf on every Gentoo machine I've run since I started with
>> Gentoo in 2002. I've been paranoid to turn it off! :-)
>
> What is your make.profile?
>

These days it's KDE. (Currently eselect #4)

> Here it is not set:
>
> $ euse -i fortran
> global use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> [-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>
> local use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> no matching entries found
>
>
> Although gcc seems to have it hardcoded:
>
> $ euse -I fortran
> global use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> [-      ] fortran - Adds support for fortran (formerly f77)
>
> Installed packages matching this USE flag:
> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5
>
> local use flags (searching: fortran)
> ************************************************************
> no matching entries found
>
>
> $ ls -la /etc/make.profile
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 56 Dec 16  2010 /etc/make.profile ->
> ../usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop
> --
> Regards,
> Mick

Yeah, I don't suggest I need it. I'm just saying I've had it selected
for nearly 10 years. I think it was in a lot of example docs, as Dale
say, waaaay back. I put it in mine and just left it there. It became
almost a superstition with me! ;-)

As I am a user type and not a dev, I didn't know then, and actually
don't now, that something on the system isn't actually programmed in
Fortran and that removing it would cause a problem so I've just left
it in forever. It never seemed important enough to go figure out since
it only directly effected gcc ebuilds which is a big build and not
done very often.

I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)
>
> - Mark
>
>
>    

I think the dev added it back.  So, if you really don't need it, put the 
minus sign in front.

If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE 
packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.

I just love running in circles.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think the dev added it back.  So, if you really don't need it, put the
> minus sign in front.
>
> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE
> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
>
> I just love running in circles.
>
> Dale

Actually, for me it's a non-issue. I've had it in all along. Even when
I remove it from make.conf and package.use it still shows up in gcc:

c2stable ~ # emerge -pv gcc

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="fortran gtk mudflap
(multilib) nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc
(-fixed-point) -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx
-nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla (-n32%) (-n64%)"
61,647 kB

Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 61,647 kB
c2stable ~ #

so nothing is getting rebuilt on my system by removing it. As not
every system here uses the KDE profile I'll investigate removing it
later, or just leave it in case they start using KDE.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>      
>>> I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> I think the dev added it back.  So, if you really don't need it, put the
>> minus sign in front.
>>
>> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE
>> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
>>
>> I just love running in circles.
>>
>> Dale
>>      
> Actually, for me it's a non-issue. I've had it in all along. Even when
> I remove it from make.conf and package.use it still shows up in gcc:
>
> c2stable ~ # emerge -pv gcc
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5  USE="fortran gtk mudflap
> (multilib) nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc
> (-fixed-point) -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libffi) -multislot -nocxx
> -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla (-n32%) (-n64%)"
> 61,647 kB
>
> Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 61,647 kB
> c2stable ~ #
>
> so nothing is getting rebuilt on my system by removing it. As not
> every system here uses the KDE profile I'll investigate removing it
> later, or just leave it in case they start using KDE.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>    

I put -fortran in make.conf.  I ran emerge -uvDNa world and let it 
rebuild a few packages.  Then I get this:

 >>> Emerging (1 of 2) sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
  * lapack-lite-3.1.1.tgz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-) 
...                                                                                                            
[ ok ]
  * Package:    sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
  * Repository: gentoo
  * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
  * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib 
policykit userland_GNU
  * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox

  * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
  * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
  * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
  * fortran dialects are support.

  * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
  *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
  *
  * Call stack:
  *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
  *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
  * The specific snippet of code:
  *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
  *
  * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info 
=sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
  * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv 
=sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
  * The complete build log is located at 
'/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-180601.log'.
  * The ebuild environment file is located at 
'/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
  * S: 
'/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'

 >>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:

 >>>  
'/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-180601.log'
root@fireball / #

Am I going in circles again?  I don't drink because I don't like being 
drunk.  I also don't spin around in my chair for the same reason.  One 
of those may be needed to reverse the problem here.

Now to go see how to fix this mess once and for all.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Matthew Finkel]

On 06/22/11 14:10, Dale wrote:
> I put -fortran in make.conf.  I ran emerge -uvDNa world and let it
> rebuild a few packages.  Then I get this:
>
> >>> Emerging (1 of 2) sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
>  * lapack-lite-3.1.1.tgz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-)
> ...                                                                                                           
> [ ok ]
>  * Package:    sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
>  * Repository: gentoo
>  * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>  * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
> policykit userland_GNU
>  * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox
>
>  * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>  * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>  * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>  * fortran dialects are support.
>
>  * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
>  *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
>  *
>  * Call stack:
>  *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
>  *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
>  *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
>  * The specific snippet of code:
>  *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
>  *
>  * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
>  * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
>  * The complete build log is located at
> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-180601.log'.
>  * The ebuild environment file is located at
> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
>  * S:
> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'
>
> >>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:
>
> >>> 
> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-180601.log'
> root@fireball / #
>
> Am I going in circles again?  I don't drink because I don't like being
> drunk.  I also don't spin around in my chair for the same reason.  One
> of those may be needed to reverse the problem here.
>
> Now to go see how to fix this mess once and for all.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't blas-reference pulled in by
merging gcc with USE="fortran"? Or did you install blas-reference for
another reason?

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Matthew Finkel wrote:
> On 06/22/11 14:10, Dale wrote:
>    
>> I put -fortran in make.conf.  I ran emerge -uvDNa world and let it
>> rebuild a few packages.  Then I get this:
>>
>>      
>>>>> Emerging (1 of 2) sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
>>>>>            
>>   * lapack-lite-3.1.1.tgz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-)
>> ...
>> [ ok ]
>>   * Package:    sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
>>   * Repository: gentoo
>>   * Maintainer: sci@gentoo.org
>>   * USE:        amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
>> policykit userland_GNU
>>   * FEATURES:   preserve-libs sandbox
>>
>>   * Please install currently selected gcc version with USE=fortran.
>>   * If you intend to use a different compiler then gfortran, please
>>   * set FC variable accordingly and take care that the neccessary
>>   * fortran dialects are support.
>>
>>   * ERROR: sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226 failed (setup phase):
>>   *   Currently no working fortran compiler is available
>>   *
>>   * Call stack:
>>   *          ebuild.sh, line   56:  Called pkg_setup
>>   *          ebuild.sh, line 1446:  Called fortran-2_pkg_setup
>>   *   fortran-2.eclass, line  134:  Called _die_msg
>>   *   fortran-2.eclass, line  120:  Called die
>>   * The specific snippet of code:
>>   *      die "Currently no working fortran compiler is available"
>>   *
>>   * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
>> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226',
>>   * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
>> =sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226'.
>>   * The complete build log is located at
>> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-180601.log'.
>>   * The ebuild environment file is located at
>> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/temp/die.env'.
>>   * S:
>> '/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226/work/lapack-lite-3.1.1'
>>
>>      
>>>>> Failed to emerge sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226, Log file:
>>>>>            
>>      
>>>>>            
>> '/var/log/portage/sci-libs:blas-reference-20070226:20110622-180601.log'
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Am I going in circles again?  I don't drink because I don't like being
>> drunk.  I also don't spin around in my chair for the same reason.  One
>> of those may be needed to reverse the problem here.
>>
>> Now to go see how to fix this mess once and for all.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>>      
> Do correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't blas-reference pulled in by
> merging gcc with USE="fortran"? Or did you install blas-reference for
> another reason?
>
>
>
>    


No clue.  I just -c'd some stuff and kept running revdep-rebuild and 
emerge -uvDNa world until it all got sorted.  It took a few times but I 
finally got a clean result.

The funny thing is this.  I removed about 3 packages but had to install 
close to a dozen to satisfy what was missing.  Cantore, or something 
like that, was left with no backend when I removed R.

So, removed some bloat then installed some more bloat.  Ain't that a peach?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> [110622 16:41]:
> Matthew Finkel wrote:
[...]
> > Do correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't blas-reference pulled in by
> > merging gcc with USE="fortran"? Or did you install blas-reference for
> > another reason?
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> 
> 
> No clue.  I just -c'd some stuff and kept running revdep-rebuild and 
> emerge -uvDNa world until it all got sorted.  It took a few times but I 
> finally got a clean result.
> 
> The funny thing is this.  I removed about 3 packages but had to install 
> close to a dozen to satisfy what was missing.  Cantore, or something 
> like that, was left with no backend when I removed R.
> 
> So, removed some bloat then installed some more bloat.  Ain't that a peach?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)

The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my previous mail.

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Todd Goodman <tsg@bonedaddy.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
> fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)
>
> The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my previous mail.
>
> Todd

If you have virtual/fortran installed then portage will pull in a
different Fortran compiler. (ifc on my machine)

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> [110622 18:35]:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Todd Goodman <tsg@bonedaddy.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
> > fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)
> >
> > The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my previous mail.
> >
> > Todd
> 
> If you have virtual/fortran installed then portage will pull in a
> different Fortran compiler. (ifc on my machine)
> 
> - Mark

Yes of course.  Sorry for the imprecise statement.  But the point is my
profile turns on R by default so just by emerging kde-meta I end up with
the GCC fortran compiler and packages that require a fortran compiler.

And if the fortran use flag was turned off (either by changes on ~x86 or
if I turn it off myself) then I get build failures.

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Todd Goodman <tsg@bonedaddy.net> wrote:
> * Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> [110622 18:35]:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Todd Goodman <tsg@bonedaddy.net> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> >
>> > No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
>> > fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)
>> >
>> > The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my previous mail.
>> >
>> > Todd
>>
>> If you have virtual/fortran installed then portage will pull in a
>> different Fortran compiler. (ifc on my machine)
>>
>> - Mark
>
> Yes of course.  Sorry for the imprecise statement.  But the point is my
> profile turns on R by default so just by emerging kde-meta I end up with
> the GCC fortran compiler and packages that require a fortran compiler.
>
> And if the fortran use flag was turned off (either by changes on ~x86 or
> if I turn it off myself) then I get build failures.
>
> Todd

Agreed 100%.

It's very strange (to me) that kde-meta builds R at all. TTBOMK it's
not even remotely a KDE project and of absolutely no value that I can
see to the average KDE desktop user. I run R, mostly in a Windows VM
because I prefer the GUI, but sometimes in Gentoo also.

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  [110622 16:41]:
>    
>> Matthew Finkel wrote:
>>      
> [...]
>    
>>> Do correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't blas-reference pulled in by
>>> merging gcc with USE="fortran"? Or did you install blas-reference for
>>> another reason?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>
>> No clue.  I just -c'd some stuff and kept running revdep-rebuild and
>> emerge -uvDNa world until it all got sorted.  It took a few times but I
>> finally got a clean result.
>>
>> The funny thing is this.  I removed about 3 packages but had to install
>> close to a dozen to satisfy what was missing.  Cantore, or something
>> like that, was left with no backend when I removed R.
>>
>> So, removed some bloat then installed some more bloat.  Ain't that a peach?
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>      
> No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
> fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)
>
> The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my previous mail.
>
> Todd
>
>    

Maybe we have something different then.  I don't have blas-reference on 
here anymore either.  My point was, disabling fortran to remove it only 
lead to other stuff being required.  I think there is more on here now 
than there was before.  So, removing fortran to get rid of bloat didn't 
help any because it just required a different set of bloat.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:

> Maybe we have something different then.  I don't have blas-reference on
> here anymore either.  My point was, disabling fortran to remove it only
> lead to other stuff being required.  I think there is more on here now
> than there was before.  So, removing fortran to get rid of bloat didn't
> help any because it just required a different set of bloat.

Maybe it's time to make a backup, then remove all USE flags from make.conf 
and package.use, set your profile to default/linux/<arch>/10.0/desktop/kde 
and rebuild. Alan and Neil's idea of a set of the meta-packages you want 
sounds good to me too.

Then you'll really have a clean system.

I may follow suit - I built this system with kde-meta for simplicity, but of 
course it now has a lot of stuff I don't want, including Fortran. I tried 
rebuilding with -fortran as I said a few minutes ago, but portage wanted ifc 
instead.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:30:04 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
> > Maybe we have something different then.  I don't have
> > blas-reference on here anymore either.  My point was, disabling
> > fortran to remove it only lead to other stuff being required. 
> > I think there is more on here now than there was before.  So,
> > removing fortran to get rid of bloat didn't help any because it
> > just required a different set of bloat.
> 
> Maybe it's time to make a backup, then remove all USE flags from
> make.conf and package.use, set your profile to
> default/linux/<arch>/10.0/desktop/kde and rebuild. Alan and Neil's
> idea of a set of the meta-packages you want sounds good to me too.
> 
> Then you'll really have a clean system.

You will have whatever system the profile maintainer thinks the 
average user should have, bloated to whatever degree said maintainer 
thinks is a good idea.

No USE flags set does not mean no options set, it means default. And 
default sets plenty flags ON

> I may follow suit - I built this system with kde-meta for
> simplicity, but of course it now has a lot of stuff I don't want,
> including Fortran. I tried rebuilding with -fortran as I said a few
> minutes ago, but portage wanted ifc instead.

kde-meta gives you all the stuff that's useful on the average system, 
plus all of accessibility, kdebindings, kdeedu, games, the sdk, toys 
and maybe even webdev.

I can't think of the kind of user that truly does actually need all of 
that.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:48:11 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:30:04 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
> > > Maybe we have something different then.  I don't have
> > > blas-reference on here anymore either.  My point was, disabling
> > > fortran to remove it only lead to other stuff being required.
> > > I think there is more on here now than there was before.  So,
> > > removing fortran to get rid of bloat didn't help any because it
> > > just required a different set of bloat.
> > 
> > Maybe it's time to make a backup, then remove all USE flags from
> > make.conf and package.use, set your profile to
> > default/linux/<arch>/10.0/desktop/kde and rebuild. Alan and Neil's
> > idea of a set of the meta-packages you want sounds good to me too.
> > 
> > Then you'll really have a clean system.
> 
> You will have whatever system the profile maintainer thinks the
> average user should have, bloated to whatever degree said maintainer
> thinks is a good idea.

Yes, of course. My point is that you can forget about maintaining all those 
USE flags yourself.

> No USE flags set does not mean no options set, it means default. And
> default sets plenty flags ON
> 
> > I may follow suit - I built this system with kde-meta for
> > simplicity, but of course it now has a lot of stuff I don't want,
> > including Fortran. I tried rebuilding with -fortran as I said a few
> > minutes ago, but portage wanted ifc instead.
> 
> kde-meta gives you all the stuff that's useful on the average system,
> plus all of accessibility, kdebindings, kdeedu, games, the sdk, toys
> and maybe even webdev.

I know, and I used to take the time to find all the things I did want and 
just install those. I used kde-meta this once just from laziness. Now I get 
to keep the whole hog-roast.

> I can't think of the kind of user that truly does actually need all of
> that.

Me neither. So maybe the time's approaching when I go and slim the whole 
shebang down. It'll have to wait until I've finished the current round of 
redesign of my website though. 177 pages to modify - that should keep me off 
the street corners for a while.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> Maybe we have something different then.  I don't have blas-reference on
>> here anymore either.  My point was, disabling fortran to remove it only
>> lead to other stuff being required.  I think there is more on here now
>> than there was before.  So, removing fortran to get rid of bloat didn't
>> help any because it just required a different set of bloat.
>>      
> Maybe it's time to make a backup, then remove all USE flags from make.conf
> and package.use, set your profile to default/linux/<arch>/10.0/desktop/kde
> and rebuild. Alan and Neil's idea of a set of the meta-packages you want
> sounds good to me too.
>
> Then you'll really have a clean system.
>
> I may follow suit - I built this system with kde-meta for simplicity, but of
> course it now has a lot of stuff I don't want, including Fortran. I tried
> rebuilding with -fortran as I said a few minutes ago, but portage wanted ifc
> instead.
>
>    

Yep.  On my machine, it pulled in about a dozen or so new packages to 
replace R and fortran being disabled on gcc.  I'm not sure I made my 
system any leaner or cleaner.  I actually may have done the opposite.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:

> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE
> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.

Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta. Do you need 
all those?

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE
>> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
>>      
> Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta. Do you need
> all those?
>
>    

I install with kde-meta.  It pulls about all things KDE in with that.  
For me, it is better to use kde-meta than to do it any other way.  Even 
with kde-meta, I think there is a few that I still had to emerge manually.

YMMV tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I install with kde-meta.  It pulls about all things KDE in with that.  For
> me, it is better to use kde-meta than to do it any other way.  Even with
> kde-meta, I think there is a few that I still had to emerge manually.

kde-meta say (to me) 'I want everything KDE has to offer'. This seems
completely inconsistent with 'I was hoping to trim a little fat'.

I understand both POV's. I also understand absolute vacuum and a
neutron star. Problem is you don't normally find them both in the same
area at the same time! ;-)

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/23/2011 6:22 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
> 
>> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE
>> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
> 
> Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta. Do you need 
> all those?
> 

It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
(USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
to build gcc with fortran. Dale's just playing it safe, I guess, after
the admittedly scary "I'm all broken and stuff!" warning message cantor
throws at you.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:54:14 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:

> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
> to build gcc with fortran.

That's not the only one. Digikam has a hard depend on clapack, which
requires virtual/blas and thus a Fortran compiler.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Programmer (n): A red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing
with inanimate objects.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/23/2011 8:31 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:54:14 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
>> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
>> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
>> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
>> to build gcc with fortran.
>
> That's not the only one. Digikam has a hard depend on clapack, which
> requires virtual/blas and thus a Fortran compiler.

Hrm. I installed kde-meta and it didn't pull in Digikam. But 
I don't remember turning it off (though I would have). I 
have a completely unreasonable and unjustifiable dislike for 
FORTRAN so I go out of my way to keep it off my system :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:35:55 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:

> > That's not the only one. Digikam has a hard depend on clapack, which
> > requires virtual/blas and thus a Fortran compiler.  
> 
> Hrm. I installed kde-meta and it didn't pull in Digikam.

I didn't say it would. I meant that installing Digikam also requires
blas-reference, and therefore a Fortan compiler. Digikam is here because
I chose to install it, gcc{fortran] is here as a consequence of that
choice.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Experience is directly proportional to the value of equipment destroyed.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> [110623 18:34]:
> On 6/23/2011 6:22 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
> > 
> >> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho.  Some KDE
> >> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
> > 
> > Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta. Do you need 
> > all those?
> > 
> 
> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
> to build gcc with fortran. Dale's just playing it safe, I guess, after
> the admittedly scary "I'm all broken and stuff!" warning message cantor
> throws at you.
> 
> --Mike

What seems strange then is that if everyone keeps telling Dale that he
most likely doesn't need cantor and R then why is R enabled in the
profile by default?

Seems it should be -R by default?

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/24/2011 8:03 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Mike Edenfield<kutulu@kutulu.org>  [110623 18:34]:

>> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
>> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
>> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need

> What seems strange then is that if everyone keeps telling Dale that he
> most likely doesn't need cantor and R then why is R enabled in the
> profile by default?

It's not enabled in the profile, it's enabled in the ebuild:

IUSE="debug ps +R"

and likely for the same reason there's a scary warning. If 
you're installing cantor, because you plan to use it (and 
not because kde-meta is a bloat monster), you need one of 
the two backends to make it work. R is the preferred option 
there, so the cantor maintainers assume "if you want cantor, 
you probably want R", and the cascade begins.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Todd Goodman]

* Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> [110624 08:25]:
> On 6/24/2011 8:03 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> > * Mike Edenfield<kutulu@kutulu.org>  [110623 18:34]:
> 
> >> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
> >> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
> >> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
> 
> > What seems strange then is that if everyone keeps telling Dale that he
> > most likely doesn't need cantor and R then why is R enabled in the
> > profile by default?
> 
> It's not enabled in the profile, it's enabled in the ebuild:
> 
> IUSE="debug ps +R"
> 
> and likely for the same reason there's a scary warning. If 
> you're installing cantor, because you plan to use it (and 
> not because kde-meta is a bloat monster), you need one of 
> the two backends to make it work. R is the preferred option 
> there, so the cantor maintainers assume "if you want cantor, 
> you probably want R", and the cascade begins.
> 
> --Mike

Ah, OK.  So it really comes down to "kde-meta is a bloat monster."

Thanks,

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Todd Goodman <tsg@bonedaddy.net> wrote:
> * Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> [110624 08:25]:
>> On 6/24/2011 8:03 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
>> > * Mike Edenfield<kutulu@kutulu.org>  [110623 18:34]:
>>
>> >> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
>> >> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
>> >> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
>>
>> > What seems strange then is that if everyone keeps telling Dale that he
>> > most likely doesn't need cantor and R then why is R enabled in the
>> > profile by default?
>>
>> It's not enabled in the profile, it's enabled in the ebuild:
>>
>> IUSE="debug ps +R"
>>
>> and likely for the same reason there's a scary warning. If
>> you're installing cantor, because you plan to use it (and
>> not because kde-meta is a bloat monster), you need one of
>> the two backends to make it work. R is the preferred option
>> there, so the cantor maintainers assume "if you want cantor,
>> you probably want R", and the cascade begins.
>>
>> --Mike
>
> Ah, OK.  So it really comes down to "kde-meta is a bloat monster."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Todd

Or maybe 'kde-meta as currently constructed by someone somewhere is a
bloat monster in some other people's opinions'. And, we're not
required to use it.

Maybe it happens somewhere but I don't know of any truly interactive
user driven process that decides what gets included in any ebuild. It
is driven more by our kind devs by whatever decision process they use.
I'm *perfectly* fine with that.

To some Gentoo users anything on the system that they don't actively
use is bloat. I understand. To others, myself included, I don't mind
if there's a bunch of extra stuff on my system if it makes some
developer's life easier. 95% of what I do in KDE is run Firefox or a
VM for trading futures and the balance is mostly use a terminal to
maintain my systems. I use Skype a little, backup to a few different
external hard drives. Sometimes I play solitaire. Nearly all of my
media watching is done in a VM due to NetFlix not supporting anything
that runs native on Linux, although I do use xine to watch the
occasional DVD from NetFlix that only I want to watch.

I don't share desktops, share or mount anything natively Windows. I
don't use Konqueror or KDE Mail. I use almost nothing in the KDE Menus
for Development, Education, Games, Graphics, Multimedia or Office.

And I also don't care enough to do anything about trying to maintain a
'smaller' KDE footprint on my machine because the code builds plenty
fast and I don't want to use my time that way.

This is just my 'life can be simple' strategy. It works for me and has
allowed me to drop about 40 pounds of bloat in the last 8 months.
Blood pressure is down. I sleep better. I don't sweat the small stuff
as much.

Again, this is just me...

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 561 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:43:50 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

> Or maybe 'kde-meta as currently constructed by someone somewhere is a
> bloat monster in some other people's opinions'. And, we're not
> required to use it.

kde-meta is, by definition, a bloat-monster. It's sole purpose is to
install everything KDE you could possibly need without you needing to
work it out for yourself. It fulfils that need well, but if space usage
or compile times are important to you, it is the wrong choice.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Too many clicks spoil the browse.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 08:43:50AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote

> 95% of what I do in KDE is run Firefox or a VM for trading
> futures and the balance is mostly use a terminal to maintain my
> systems. I use Skype a little, backup to a few different external
> hard drives. Sometimes I play solitaire. Nearly all of my media
> watching is done in a VM due to NetFlix not supporting anything that
> runs native on Linux, although I do use xine to watch the occasional
> DVD from NetFlix that only I want to watch.
> 
> I don't share desktops, share or mount anything natively Windows. I
> don't use Konqueror or KDE Mail. I use almost nothing in the KDE Menus
> for Development, Education, Games, Graphics, Multimedia or Office.

  Which brings up the question, why are you using KDE in the first
place?  It's a pointie-clickie-touchie-feelie-oowie-gui that emulates
Windows, but doesn't do anything for me.  I run Icewm as my WM.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 474 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:03:04 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:

> What seems strange then is that if everyone keeps telling Dale that he
> most likely doesn't need cantor and R then why is R enabled in the
> profile by default?

Because if you do need cantor, it works best with R. But the point is
that he doesn't need cantor, and therefore not it's dependencies, like R.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Some day my ship will come in, but with my luck, I'll be at the airport.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]