On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 21:15 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 07:18:33PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 18:19 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Unless I don't recall well,
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FortranModulesDir
> > was accepted as a guideline.
> Actually, this guideline is broken , the directory has to be
> versioned .
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513985
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483765
This was discussed afterwards, if I recall well, it was said that it was
not necessarily broken at each gfortran release, such that we would do
rebuild only when we notice a change. In fact it is said as such in the
Each gfortran release (from 4.1 to 4.2) may lead to an incompatible change in the .mod
files. Therefore for each such gfortran update, this issue should be investigated, and a
rebuild of the package that provide the .mod asked for on the devel announce file and done
by the maintainers if needed.
Are you unhappy with that? The problem with a versionned directory is
that it would lead to many unneeded rebuilds since most of the minor gcc
don't break the .mod formats and there are many minor gcc releases.
Personnally, I am not opposed to having a versionned directory. In fact
this would only mean a change in the _fmoddir macro definition, and maybe
somebody willing to organize an automatic rebuild of all the packages
installing .mod files.
That was the opinion of Jakub Jelinek, one of the gcc maintainers.
I agree with you that normally that shouldn't have any effect as
rebuilds of all packages take place when gfortran is upgraded, but given
that on RHEL 5.3 there are two versions of gfortran (the default 4.1
series and the tech preview, gcc43-gfortran, to be updated to
gcc44-gfortran in 5.4), this might have an effect.
And, as you said, it would only require the redefinition of the _fmoddir
macro and a couple of rebuilds.
I have modified my proposal to account for the versioned directory.
Fedora Project Contributor