[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#993031: ripser FTCBFS: hard codes the build architecture compiler



Hi Helmut,

Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:

> Hi Gard,
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:10:32PM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> Thanks a lot for making me aware of this. The package above has been
>> fixed, but I know I have a similar problem with a Fortran (77) package I
>> maintain (src:lbfgsb). I tried the same recipe there, letting
>> buildtools.mk set FC in that case. However, it sets it to
>> x86_64-linux-gnu-f77 and the likes, which doesn't seem to be provided by
>> any package (or am I blind?). Do you have some advice for me in this
>> regard?
>
> I fear that we cannot provide a solution for fortran at present. There
> seem to be multiple issues at present.
>
> For one thing, a fortran compiler is not build-essential so you have to
> depend on it. Typically and in case of src:lbfgsb, you add gfortran to
> Build-Depends. This dependency is not satisfiable during cross
> compilation. The issue is known and tracked as #666743. More review and
> testing is needed here. Once that bug is fixed, you should change the
> gfortran dependency to gfortran-for-host.

Makes sense, thanks.

> Then, it seems that dpkg's buildtools.mk disagrees with gcc on how the
> fortran compiler is called. It seems like /usr/bin/f77 is managed using
> alternatives. Is it intentional that we use that path during builds or
> would you rather force gfortran given that you depend on gfortran rather
> than flang?

To be honest, I have no idea. I barely speak any Fortran at all (just
enough to manage the package).

> If the alternatives still make sense today, gcc should likely provide
> triplet-prefixed alternatives as well. On the other hand, if everyone
> expects f77 to be gfortran, the alternative should be removed and
> replaced by a simple symlink.
>
> Depending on the outcome, maybe dpkg's buildtools.mk should be changed
> to use gfortran as the tool name instead of f77.
>
> Can you provide more background on the fortran situation?

Sadly not, I don't know that ecosystem well enough at all. I'll just
keep hardcoding gfortran for now.

Thanks for your help.


 Best,
 Gard
 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: