>>> "Norman" == Norman Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...] Norman> (copyright paperwork has been a right pain in the Norman> tender bits). Do you mean it's completed, almost done, or yet to do? (I can't see you in the FSF records right now.) Norman> This is a preliminary heads-up while I assemble the Norman> actual submission as a patch against autoconf 2.59 and automake Norman> 1.9.6, along with a question (directed at automake-patches). Please make sure the Automake patch applies to CVS HEAD, not 1.9.6. Such large changes are never going to branch-1-9 (unless you can extract small bug fixes). CVS HEAD compatibility might be more of an issue with Autoconf, since 2.59 was released 20 months ago. [...] Norman> In the case of automake, this goes substantially beyond the more Norman> recent fortran-and-automake work, which (if I'm understanding it Norman> correctly) assumes that the compiler in question can do preprocessing Norman> itself, and thus solves a simpler problem. Norman> The question is this. My automake changes conflict to at least some Norman> extent with these more recent changes. In particular, I based my Norman> changes on the FC interface rather than the F77 one, though I at Norman> least am more concerned with f77 than f9x. This is because the 1.8.2 Norman> documentation said `[FC] is the newer interface to Fortran source, Norman> replacing the older F77 interfaces', which seems a fairly clear Norman> deprecation of the F77 interface. Automake 1.9.6, however, seems to Norman> suggest that FC is for Fortran 9x and silently un-deprecates the F77 Norman> interface. Was this un-deprecation a principled decision, or was it Norman> just an acknowledgement of the f77/f9x cleavage? That is, I would Norman> much like to ignore the old F77 interface, and concentrate only on Norman> the FC one -- are there any objections? I'm not a Fortran user and did not follow the story behind that FC interface. I can't find any mention of "FC" in the source and documentation of automake 1.8.2. Is that really where you read that deprecation statement? Michael Nolta offered the f9x support in early 2004, I guess he just used the FC interface for f9x and didn't bother with F77. If the FC interface is able to support f77 too, then it seems desirable to support that in Automake. Until Autoconf clearly mark AC_PROG_F77 as obsolete, I think we should keep the existing support for it. However adding new features that work only with the FC interface sounds OK to me. [...] -- Alexandre Duret-Lutz