Hello, On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:25:00AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Stepan Kasal <kasal@xxxxxx> writes: > > I wanted to say: > > "I suggest you to install package foo, which can be grabbed from foo.org, > > in order to proceed with this build." > > Ouch. That's not how I interpreted your output. Perhaps we should > rethink the output format. definitely. That's part of the work I hope Hugh will do for us. ;-) > > 2) at the end there is only one header "Suggestions:", followed by the > > list of packages. > (2) is a nicety, but it isn't crucial. I don't see that it's worth > trading generality for. Sure. What I'm trading generality for, is that people tend to prefer simpler macros. I still see many places where people use AC_ARG_WITH without AS_HELP_STRING, so I want a specific macro here, perhaps build on top of a general one. > > 1) the text is printed twice, first as a NOTICE, and second at the end. > (1) might be worth doing -- perhaps we could use a list of priorities, > rather than a single priority, and output N copies of the message if > the list is length N. I'm not sure whether it's worth doing, though. I think it might be better if AC_MSG_NEED called the generalized AC_MSG_NOTICE twice. We can also do: AS_IF([test "x$printed_a_need" = x], [AC_MSG_NOTICE([Summary of suggestions:], 1) printed_a_need=yes ]) at the beginning of AC_MSG_NEED in order to implement (2). But I'm not going to do any code, before I someone (Hugh?) contributes a doc patch, with examples etc. Have a nice day, Stepan Kasal _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
