>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce> What is this? Maybe not everyone wants to use your version of
Bruce> AC_PROG_YACC. I use my own: AG_PROG_BYACC because I have a
Bruce> strong preference for BYACC. But, your latest automake is
Bruce> making some sort of attempt to be really rigorous and is
Bruce> sticking its nose into my business. This is wrong. You can
Bruce> *NOT* presume to know more than me. automake needs to be a
Bruce> tool that helps me accomplish my goals, not get in my way.
Bruce> Grr.
This bug report doesn't really have enough information in it for me to
respond to it. Nevertheless I will try.
Are you angry because automake tries to make sure that YACC is defined
as a configure variable? Would you rather have it check to see if
YACC is any sort of variable? That might be reasonable, though it
might be difficult under the present circumstances. Automake's
configure-scanning machinery is fairly primitive right now. A future
version will use autoconf's trace feature, which ought to make things
more robust.
If you are using yacc rules in automake, and you have a macro which
purports to look for yacc, but you do not set the `YACC' output
variable, then your Makefile.in will be broken. Automake requires
YACC to be defined. This part at least ought to work correctly if
your AG_PROG_BYACC does AC_SUBST(YACC). As far as I know automake
does not have a hard requirement for AC_PROG_YACC.
Tom
