Re: ping: updating Fortran support for f9x?

[Steven G. Johnson]

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