Re: Requirements: configuration test dependencies

[Didier Verna]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> Is an AC_BEFORE violation really just a warning?

        yes.

> I think it is an error.

        That's what Akim and I fight about all day long. Akim sees it as a
`convenience' and doesn't think something more severe is needed. I think that
it should be an error, because I haven't seen a case where an AC_BEFORE
warning is issued, and the user keeps the reverse ordering on purpose. If I'm
proven wrong, I still think we should have something like AC_BEFORE_FATAL.

-- 
    /     /   _   _       Didier Verna        http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/
 - / / - / / /_/ /        EPITA / LRDE         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ / /_/ / /__ /      14-16 rue Voltaire        Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77
                   94276 Kremlin-Bic�tre cedex   Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99