On 01/23/2013 12:04 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: >> [..skip..] >> Maybe the current error should be demoted to a warning, to allow us to >> be more forward-compatible with such possible future scenarios? > > I vote for this approach. > I'm starting to be convinced myself that it is the best one.
But then again, mulling over the issue a little longer, I've come to realize that autoreconf takes care of re-executing aclocal after (and if) libtoolize is run, which makes my previous concerns about the "wrong execution order" mostly moot, and might give a valid use case for not having an error nor a warning if the "primary" m4 macro dir doesn't exist. So, what should we do in the end? > It was also proposed some time ago (it is > transitively hyper-linked from here already): > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-02/msg00030.html > Thanks for the reference. > It must be adopted to current revision & I would maybe switch the msg channel > from 'unsupported' to 'portability' if I understand its purposes. > I think the 'unsupported' category is fine (if we finally decide to go down the "give a warning" road). Regards, Stefano
