Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:00:08PM CEST: > Note that I have not yet run the whole testsuite on this change; I will if > you tell me you're interested in the patch.
I'm intrigued by the fact that there appears to be a bug in the current implementation. I agree with you in finding the patch not exactly clean. ;-) Why are you not suggesting AM_MISSING_PROG([AUTOM4TE], [autom4te])? I guess I don't really see why searching for autom4te is somehow a better a idea than finding out which autom4te autoconf actually uses: that is, either $AUTOM4TE if set, or the thing that was compiled in, which at least is guaranteed to match the Autoconf version which autoconf comes from. And from a user standpoint, I'm sure some would be surprised to see their configure script search for a behind-the-scenes tool they never knew was being used at all. Of course, with AM_MISSING_PROG there is still the problem that I think neither of autoconf, autoheader, ..., aclocal, automake are prepared for a return value of 63 from autom4te, which should probably let them return 63 as well. Haven't checked though. Cheers, Ralf