On 07/10/16 14:10, Qingshan Chen wrote:
On 07/10/16 01:00, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2016/07/09 15:47, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
On Friday, July 8, 2016 1:10 PM, Stuart Henderson
<s...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
Could we just get rid of gfortran? It seems that nothing in ports
is using it..
Some R packages require gfortran to be built. I managed to install
gfortran a few weeks ago by manually removing the gcc file that was
colliding. However, the R package (I think it was knitr) required a
newer version of gfortran, so I had to make do without that package.
The newer version of gfortran is in the g95 package, the executable
is called egfortran.
This is interesting. I was confused at first. There is a G95 project,
which is not part of GNU GCC project, but aims to produce a modern
high quality Fortran compiler. G95 has quite some followers. See
www.g95.org
As you mentioned, the executable of the g95 package is egfortran. The
output of 'egfortran -v' does suggest that it is a newer version of
the GCC Fortran compiler. In this case, I am not against removing the
older gfortran package, though I am a little worried that the mismatch
between the versions of gcc and gfortran might cause problems in some
situations.
I take back my last sentence. A newer version of gcc, matching
egfortran, is also available, and it is called egcc.
