Re: Support for preprocessable Fortran in autoconf/automake

[Paul Eggert]

Norman Gray <address@hidden> writes:

> I've assembled a set of patches to autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.8.2,
> to support preprocessable Fortran....

Thanks for looking into this.

> I ... suggest that, rather than post the patches and so risk letting
> them `into the wild', I mail them to anyone who can review or test
> the changes -- does that sound reasonable?

Yes.  I suggest sending them to Steven G. Johnson, who contributed
most of the recent Fortran-related changes in Autoconf.  I'll CC: this
message to him to give him a heads-up.

> If so, what's the best way to modify the version numbers to indicate that
> this is a temporary fork/patch?  Automake has useful support for a -FORK
> portion in its version number, but m4sugar's m4_version_compare gets very
> confused at anything other than a single letter after the version number.

If it's just an emailed patch set, I wouldn't worry about this too much.

> I haven't yet added proper documentation to the .texi files

To some extent this is more important than the code itself.
Personally I'd rather start by reviewing the documentation.
(Not that I use Fortran much....)

I assume you know about the usual FSF paperwork for contributions?  If
not, I can email you more info about it.