Hi,
The following change updates `README' and `configure.in' so that they
mention flex.
Thanks,
Ludovic.
2005-06-16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.in: Look for `flex'.
* README: Mention flex as a requirement.
Index: README
===
Kevin Ryde writes:
> No offence, but it sounds very dubious to me
That's why I added the configure option and compile switch. You do
not want this enabled for well behaved systems. Could you live with
that?
> These things are meant to be settled at the "make all" build stage.
I know, but when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> + AC_MSG_ERROR([flex not found. See README.])
No, this shouldn't be an error. The dist includes the generated C
code so you don't need lex in a normal build.
(You need lex if you change the ".l", and in a maintainer build maybe,
so a configure ch
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (You need lex if you change the ".l", and in a maintainer build maybe,
> so a configure check is good, but it shouldn't be an error.)
Or, we might just add a test with a suitable error message to the make
rule that uses flex...
flex --version || .
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> flex --version || ...
Or the "missing" script, maybe, if autoconf/automake doesn't already
set that up.
> What would the configure check actually get us?
Only allowing the system lex instead of insisting on flex, I think.
(Which may or may not
