Bug 373861

Summary:	add fortran modules macro and FFLAGS switch
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Patrice Dumas <pertusus>
Component:	redhat-rpm-config	Assignee:	Jon Masters <jcm>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	10	CC:	orion, pmatilai, pnasrat
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-03-02 13:56:01 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	257701, 257761, 427121

Description Patrice Dumas 2007-11-09 21:43:53 UTC

Description of problem:

According to Tibbs, the proposal
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FortranModulesDir
has been accepted.

So I ask to add in the macros file

%_fmoddir               %{_libdir}/gfortran/modules

and modify FFLAGS to read

  FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:-%optflags -I%_fmoddir}" ; export FFLAGS ; \

My test shows that the -I%_fmoddir should also be in 
redhat/macros

I leave to you what should be in upstream macros file and 
in redhat/macros

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Panu Matilainen 2007-11-10 12:28:07 UTC

This is distro packaging policy really, belongs to redhat-rpm-config.

Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2007-11-29 10:59:18 UTC

Could this be worked on? Some multilib fixes would easily be fixed 
once this is done.

I can provide patches, though they are quite trivial.

Comment 3 Patrice Dumas 2008-01-27 11:41:04 UTC

Last comment is 2 month old. This change is trivial, corresponds
with a packaging policy, blocks proper packaging of packages that 
are shipping mod files. Could this be acted upon?

I don't think it makes sense to start the MIA procedure, I guess
that people are still here.

Comment 4 Jon Masters 2008-04-26 01:53:26 UTC

This was filed under a different user account so I didn't see the bug. I have
taken steps to correct this and will look into this.

Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2008-06-18 11:03:55 UTC

Could it be possible to push that change to F-9 too?

Comment 6 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 02:02:48 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle.
Changing version to '10'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 7 Patrice Dumas 2009-03-02 13:56:01 UTC

Closing, since nobody seems to care, F9 is certainly too old to care about. Moreover Jakub disagrees on fmoddir.