-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Benoit SIGOURE on 10/1/2007 6:11 AM: > Alright but the problem ATM is that configure complains that install-sh > is missing when one runs it. Wouldn't it be better to report that > install-sh is missing at autoconf time? This would make it possible to > tell "you can cp install-sh from > /path/to/where/autoconf/install/has/put/it". Not only that, but there is also the issue that autoconf doesn't enforce that install-sh should be executable, because it's usage is so entrenched without prefixing with $SHELL that things break if it is not executable (witness the recent texinfo release): http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2007-09/msg00011.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2007-09/msg00049.html You are correct that the _right_ way for autoconf to do things is to complain loudly if install-sh is not present and executable, rather than waiting for ./configure to do the job. I only worry about whether this will break some packages bootstrapping paradigm, if they run autoconf prior to automake. - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake ebb9@xxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHAOWW84KuGfSFAYARAm+jAJ98n23Owovqh7ekq5D2k4SvN4voNQCgu7xA 1pdFDQuYCMVQ8j/09AXp7YY= =B9Xx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
