Foray Build Tool Project Started
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: Get system time
Next: the g0 edit descriptor
From: Michael Prager on 3 Jul 2008 16:28 drewmccormack(a)mac.com wrote: > I have started a project at Google to develop the new Foray (formerly > TCBuild) Fortran build tool: > > http://code.google.com/p/foraytool/ > > Foray is designed specifically for Fortran projects, and has a lot of > nice advanced features, similar to Scons. It is written in Python, and > anyone willing to contribute is most welcome. [...] Has anyone here has gotten Foray working under Windows (with which Drew acknowledges it is incompatible)? I've dabbled in Python, but my limited skill and the limited commenting in the Foray code frustrate my getting Foray working. Alternatively, can anyone recommend a Fortran good build tool or makefile generator that works under Windows (command line)? Perl or Python scripts would fill the bill, as long as they need no (or only trivial) user revision. Thanks! Mike -- Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply. * Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise. * Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.
From: John Appleyard on 9 Jul 2008 08:10 Michael Prager wrote: > drewmccormack(a)mac.com wrote: > >> I have started a project at Google to develop the new Foray (formerly >> TCBuild) Fortran build tool: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/foraytool/ >> >> Foray is designed specifically for Fortran projects, and has a lot of >> nice advanced features, similar to Scons. It is written in Python, and >> anyone willing to contribute is most welcome. [...] > > Has anyone here has gotten Foray working under Windows (with > which Drew acknowledges it is incompatible)? I've dabbled in > Python, but my limited skill and the limited commenting in the > Foray code frustrate my getting Foray working. > > Alternatively, can anyone recommend a Fortran good build tool or > makefile generator that works under Windows (command line)? Perl > or Python scripts would fill the bill, as long as they need no > (or only trivial) user revision. > > Thanks! > Mike > Polyhedron's automake does this. Note that Polyhedron's automake is not the same as the Linux automake (I believe we had the name in the public domain first - in this newsgroup as a matter of fact - but I've never bothered to sort it out with the open source guys) -- John Appleyard - (send email to john!news@.. rather than spamtrap@..) Polyhedron Software Programs for Programmers - QA, Compilers, Graphics, Consultancy ********* Visit our Web site on http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/ *********
From: Richard Maine on 9 Jul 2008 12:46 John Appleyard <spamtrap(a)polyhedron.com> wrote: > Polyhedron's automake does this. Note that Polyhedron's automake is not > the same as the Linux automake (I believe we had the name in the public > domain first - in this newsgroup as a matter of fact - but I've never > bothered to sort it out with the open source guys) If you try to sort it out, you'll get off on the wrong foot talking to them if you refer to it as the "Linux automake". That's the kind of terminology that they tend to have pretty negative reacrtions to. I don't personally support Stallman's insistance that one has to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux because it uses so many GNU tools. That strikes me as just his sour grapes. But renaming the individual GNU tools as Linux ones just because they happen to be used in most/all Linux distributions goes a bit much the other way in my opinion. The GNU automake well predates Linux and is used in plenty of other operating systems as well. (I'm not saying anything at all about the substance of your comment - in particular about who used the term "automake" first. I am commenting only on the term "Linux automake" as opposed to "GNU automake"). -- Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Michael Prager on 9 Jul 2008 13:58 nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: Richard, Didn't you mention some time ago a make-makefile utility that you use successfully? Mike -- Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply. * Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise. * Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.
From: Richard Maine on 9 Jul 2008 14:44
Michael Prager <Mike.Prager.indigo(a)noaa.gov> wrote: > Didn't you mention some time ago a make-makefile utility that > you use successfully? I've used Makedepf90 (google for it). There are several others, but that's the one that seemed to fit my particular needs best. Your mileage may vary, etc. It has been long enough since I looked that I don't recall what particular features pushed me to that one. Note that all it does is dependencies - not the rest of the Makefile stuff. But that was what I was looking for. To customize Makefiles for different systems, I just did some manually written scripts for my particular cases (nothing that would generalize well enough to be worth showing, and some of which I'd probably do differently now if I started from scratch). -- Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain |