Re: [PATCH 4/6] Improve support for non-default autotools in rebuild rules.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* 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