version bump of the ifc ebuild to current ifc 9 version PS: are the fetch restrictions really needed? The ifc-7.x ebuilds do not have those.
Created attachment 76000 [details] ifc-9.0.031.ebuild
I tried to install this, but on the install, it died: [code] ifc # ebuild ifc-9.0.031.ebuild install >>> md5 files ;-) ifc-9.0.031.ebuild >>> md5 files ;-) files/digest-ifc-9.0.031 >>> md5 src_uri ;-) l_fc_c_9.0.031.tar.gz >>> Checking l_fc_c_9.0.031.tar.gz's mtime... >>> WORKDIR is up-to-date, keeping... >>> It appears that ifc is already compiled; skipping. >>> (clean to force compilation) >>> It appears that ifc has already been tested; skipping. >>> Install ifc-9.0.031 into /var/tmp/portage/ifc-9.0.031/image/ category dev-lang install: cannot stat `/usr/local/portage/dev-lang/ifc/files/9.0/05ifc': No such file or directory !!! ERROR: dev-lang/ifc-9.0.031 failed. !!! Function src_install, Line 104, Exitcode 1 !!! (no error message) !!! If you need support, post the topmost build error, NOT this status message. [\code] Whats wrong here?
looks like you created the local overlay without copying the contents of /usr/portage/dev-lang/ifc first.
Thanks, that fixed it. Is this a normal thing with bugzilla ebuilds? I did this with the instructions from the Installing 3rd party ebuilds article at the wiki (http://gentoo-wiki.com/Talk:HOWTO_Installing_3rd_Party_Ebuilds) and it didn't mention that I would have to do this. Just wondering if some documention needs to be updated to help people like me (who don't know that much about ebuilds) in the future. Cheers, Will
Well, any ebuild which references external files (from the files-dir) will look for those in the overlay and if they don't exist, then you'll run into that error. And as I din't want to clutter bugzilla with an unchanged version of file from official portage, I only submitted the updated ebuild. PS: Reading up on ebuilds and having a look at some of them is quite fruitful, if you want to get even more power from portage. (Writing ebuilds is not that hard.)
*** Bug 120396 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 124431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 130252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
the source can be automatically fetched: ftp://download.intel.com/software/products/compilers/downloads/l_fc_c_9.0.031.tar.gz
The intel fortran compiler 9.1 is now available, and no, it can't be redistrubted by Gentoo because of the following statement: D. DISTRIBUTION: Distribution of the Materials is also subject to the following limitations: You (i) shall be solely responsible to your customers for any update or support obligation or other liability which may arise from the distribution, (ii) shall not make any statement that your product is "certified", or that its performance is guaranteed, by Intel, (iii) shall not use Intel's name or trademarks to market your product without written permission, (iv) shall prohibit disassembly and reverse engineering, (v) shall not publish reviews of Materials designated as beta without written permission by Intel, and (vi) shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Intel and its suppliers from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from your distribution of any product. Gentoo cannot be held liable for lawsuits that come from using this program, nor will we defend Intel in a case that may arrise from the ifc breaking something. Since we cannot be bound by such obligation, we cannot fall under the distribution part of this license. Fetch restrictions should remain on.
*** Bug 144395 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
An ebuild for a 9.1.036 version of the Intel Fortran Compiler is attached. The supporting file 05ifc has to be placed in dev-lang/ifc/files/9.1 within the portage hierarchy.
Created attachment 94593 [details] ifc-9.1.036.ebuild
Created attachment 94594 [details] 05ifc
I get a : ifort: error: could not find linux directory based on g++ After installing ifc-9.1.036 when trying to compile. I tried to add LC_ALL=C and g++ directory to the environment (via GXX_ROOT) as mentioned on the Intel site, and using ifortbin instead of ifort without success. My system is x86_64 (amd)
I've only been running ifc + icc on 32-bit systems without any problems and so have no x86_64 experience. Perhaps the first line in /etc/env.d/05ifc needs to be changed from IA32ROOT=/opt/intel/fortran9.1 to IA64ROOT=/opt/intel/fortran9.1 on 64-bit systems??? But this maybe a useless suggestion, the complaint from ifort seems to be about g++ ... I don't know... Best, Chris
Setting IA64ROOT did not helped :)
The actual ebuild on portage (v9.1.040) is not a valid ifc package: > emerge -av dev-lang/ifc These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild FU ] dev-lang/ifc-9.1.040 [9.1.037] 136,340 kB Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 136,340 kB Fetch Restriction: 1 package (1 unsatisfied) Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] >>> Emerging (1 of 1) dev-lang/ifc-9.1.040 to / !!! dev-lang/ifc-9.1.040 has fetch restriction turned on. !!! This probably means that this ebuild's files must be downloaded !!! manually. See the comments in the ebuild for more information. !!! The following are listed in SRC_URI for ifc: !!! l_fc_c_9.1.040.tar.gz The file "l_fc_c_9.1.040.tar.gz" doesn't exist nowhere! If you look at intel's ftp: ftp://download.intel.com/software/products/compilers/downloads/ you will only see (as of today, 2007/03/28): l_fc_c_9.1.036.tar.gz l_fc_p_9.1.032.tar.gz for the v9.1 compiler. So either an ebuild for v9.1.032 or v9.1.036. By the way, what is the difference between "l_fc_c" and "l_fc_p" ?
ifc-10* are now in the tree.
