Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you use both $F77 and $FC in your package (which I believe you do), > the right thing would be to wait for Libtool-2.0 which has proper FC > support and is due pretty soon (I hope).
Ah ha. But I believe that the only reason I am using both is that when I just used FC, libtool ran AC_PROG_F77 on it's own. Perhaps I should retry this. I have no great desire to have both F77 and FC defined! Usually the f77 compiler is just the f90 compiler anyway, sometimes with extra flags. Do we think this might work if I only had FC defined? I can try that... > > Meanwhile, you can try this workaround, in the hope that $F77 and $FC > have very similar ways of functioning (untested): > > LTFCCOMPILE = $(LIBTOOL) --tag=F77 $(AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS) $(LIBTOOLFLAGS) \ > --mode=compile $(FC) $(AM_FCFLAGS) $(FCFLAGS) > > I bet the same thing won't work for linking, though.. :-/ I'll give this a try and let you know how it goes, if I can't get rid of F77 instead. > > Can you wait a little bit? We're really working through the final bits > now. Hmmmm. Exactly what I would say about netCDF-4.0 beta!! Actually I can't release until HDF5 (another data package) comes out with its next version, sometime next year. How long until libtool 2.0 comes out in beta? Thanks for the help, you've given me a lot to try! Ed -- Ed Hartnett -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
