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

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Saturday 21 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * 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
Fixed.

> > +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.
Maybe, but if `missing' detects a versioning error, it goes on with 
its workarounds (touching output files etc.), which are no good for 
what aclocal needs.  So better leave aclocal fail, and `missing'
detecting the failure of aclocal, no?

And BTW, the new behaviour of rebuild rules is consistent with the
old behaviour in the case where $AUTOCONF and $AUTOM4TE are not 
overridden at configure time...

Regards,
  Stefano