>> Unfortunately, there is no way to portably install a compiler. Having a >> configure script attempt to do a non-portable installation of a compiler >> goes against the philosophy of autoconf. > > yes, is not a job for autoconf, I agree, but if configure writes a > lacks file it will not hurt anyone. > one more point. In fact is not autoconf itself who would write that file: "lacks". it will be writen by third part macro files used by developers of the package who will say what software must be present in an orderer way. The only thing that autoconf must do for helping is to aloud set a variable that changes its error reporting policy or behaviour. I think other people could like to set that variable too. Even to manually install source dependencies Its boring to run ./configure and receive a message. Install soft-xyz. you search for that, you install, you go again another software ..... If you receive all that messages togheter you will install all that software at once. And if you use third part macros that aloud developers to tell people using macros, with a name relevant to that task could be a great thing sorry for my english and thank you for your attention -- Diego Saravia Diego.Saravia@xxxxxxxxx NO FUNCIONA->dsa@xxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
