* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 03:05:20PM CEST: > --- a/m4/init.m4 > +++ b/m4/init.m4
> @@ -70,10 +70,22 @@ _AM_IF_OPTION([no-define],, > # Some tools Automake needs. > AC_REQUIRE([AM_SANITY_CHECK])dnl > AC_REQUIRE([AC_ARG_PROGRAM])dnl > +dnl We pass the the $AUTOCONF and $AUTOM4TE commands in the environment > +dnl of automake and aclocal calls in the generated Makefiles, so wrapping > +dnl them with the `missing' script would defintely be a bad idea. typo defintely > +dnl For example, if aclocal proper is ever called, it will need a working > +dnl autom4te to get traces from e.g. configure.ac, and in such a case the > +dnl workarounds provided by `missing --run autom4te' are not enough; a > +dnl flat-out aclocal failure is the best and most correct option. Hmm, but a slightly version-skewed autom4te for tracing should usually be ok. The tracing algorithm hasn't been very version-sensitive in the past. Does this make sense what I'm saying or is this remark off the mark? (I haven't grokked your complete patch series yet.) Thanks, Ralf
