Subject: Re: bug#8635: Some Fortran files don't have the extensions automake wants

From: Peter Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:11:17 -0700

On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 21:40 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hmm... I don't like this solution either; it still sounds a little too
> hackish, and to me it seems wrong to have to declare project policy
> decisions that are system-independent and relevant only for automake
> (in this case, the policy decision being "use the `*.for' extension
> for Fortran 90 sources") in the configure.ac file.
> OTOH, some times ago a patch has been proposed which would allow user
> extensions to the languages handled/understood by Automake:
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2010-09/msg00003.html>
> IMHO, resurrecting it (and possibly improving it to naturally serve
> your user case) would be the best way to fix your problem (and similar
> ones) in the long run.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm willing to do a little bit of work to get
this bug fixed, but I don't have the time to make a major revision to
automake's internals, which it sounds this patch would entail. (Though
as a longtime automake user I definitely agree that more extensibility
would be awesome.)

Ralf, I think I understand what you mentioned about AC_FC_SRCEXT, and
that sounds like a nice approach. Is work actively being done on hooking
up those macros to Automake's language-choosing apparatus? If I wanted
that to happen, would I realistically have to do it myself?

Thanks,

Peter

> Regards,
> Stefano

-- 
Peter Williams / [email-masked]
Department of Astronomy, UC Berkeley