Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Friday, June 06, 2003 17:56:08 +0100 Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Reposting - What do people think about this? > > I'm leery of using automake in any fashion, so I'm not overly enthusiastic > about using aclocal even in such limited fashion.
Why? This change does not introduce a dependency - it merely takes advantage of it if it needs to and it is available. > Yet, I should note that you should probably test for aclocal first before > you use it. See how we search for libtoolize with PrintPath. That'd be a > better solution than just assuming aclocal is present before executing it. > Otherwise, people will just see 'aclocal is not found' and then 'aclocal is > not available' - that's not very clean behavior. OK, I will clean this up. > BTW, what lame-brain OSes require this? -- justin Ones which use clever scripts to permit transparent usage of multiple autotool versions. In my case, Cygwin. Max.
