[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Better error message for aclocal.m4 mismatch
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Better error message for aclocal.m4 mismatch |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:45:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:03:33PM CEST:
> >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
>
> RW> I'm pretty sure users will be confused about this error message --
> RW> I even was. I think the one below would be a bit better.
> I'm wary of suggesting to run `aclocal' as some people will feel
> compelled to run it as-is, without the necessary -I, and then
> send us hate mails.
Yes, that's not a good outcome.
> ISTR you complained against gettextize for something similar some days
> ago.
Yes. I hope you didn't mean to imply that that was a hate mail.
> Personally I'd love to be able
> to suggest autoreconf, but its use is unfortunately not universal.
Yep. :-/
> How about something like this:
>
> aclocal.m4:17: error: this file was generated for autoconf 2.60.
> You have another version of autoconf. If you want to use that, you
> should regenerate the build system entirely.
> aclocal.m4:17: the top level
Yeah, I guess that's good enough. I've just used that and applied it.
> and we let the user choose its preferred course for regen?
Well, it may still generate maintenance traffic, but I guess that's
difficult to avoid. (And if not for that message, then the same
question arises in other circumstances.)
> Or was there another source of confusion you were trying to address?
Nope.
Cheers,
Ralf