Dan Manthey <dan_manthey@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > AS_PACKAGE_SUGGEST([flex 2.5.x],[http://gnu.org/whereever_flex_is.html]) OK, but what is the practical difference between that, and something like this? AC_MSG_FAILURE([you need a suitable implementation of "lex" to build this package. We suggest the latest stable version of flex <http://www.gnu.org/software/flex/>.]) Or, you can do something like this if you want "configure" to continue after the warning: AC_MSG_WARN([you lack a suitable implementation of "lex", so you won't be able to build this program reliably if you modify .l files.]) Or, if you want to warn at the end, you can do this: my_warning='you lack a suitable implementation of "lex", so you won't be able to build this program reliably if you modify .l files.' and then append something like this to your configure.ac file: case $my_warning in ?*) AC_MSG_WARN("$my_warning");; esac An advantage of this sort of approach is that one can experiment with these ideas now, to accomplish something in this area. That is, one can implement them with one's own macros; they don't require any changes to Autoconf. Later, if the ideas work well in practice, we can think about how to add Autoconf macros for them (perhaps simply by incorporating the experimental macros). _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
