[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ping: updating Fortran support for f9x?
From: |
Steven G. Johnson |
Subject: |
Re: ping: updating Fortran support for f9x? |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT) |
On 7 Jul 2003, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Steven G. Johnson" <address@hidden> writes:
> > http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2002-11/msg00009.html
>
> Akim understands the issues here better than I do, and I defer to his
> expertise here. However, he's been busy so I'll step in and give my
> own reaction. I think these changes will be improvements to Autoconf
> even if they're not perfect and can be improved later, so I'm inclined
> to accept them.
>
> A few things, though:
>
> * We need copyright papers from you for a big change like this.
> I'll follow this up via private email.
Done; I did this years ago. (I've already contributed patches of
significant size, e.g. the Fortran-to-C name wrappers stuff.)
> * The changes need documentation, both in NEWS and in autoconf.texi.
Of course; I was waiting for feedback to see if any substantial changes
were required.
> * We need to integrate the changes into the current CVS autoconf.
> (I don't think this should be too much trouble.)
That's not a problem. I just did a 'cvs update' on my autoconf tree, and
it doesn't appear that any conflicts have arisen.
Thanks for your response!
Steven