Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> Currently, config/missing isn't being installed. This can lead to confusing
>> error messages, such as if Perl isn't found and something needs it [1].
>> Attached patch adds it to install and uninstall recipes.
> I find it somewhat hard to believe this is the right thing to do. But
> if this isn't right, then I don't know what is right, either.
Installing our "missing" script seems like a seriously bad idea. For one
thing, as the comments in it note, it's similar but not identical to such
a script that exists in many GNU packages; we could easily create problems
for other packages that rely on other variants of it.
I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure
doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and
letting the usual shell "bison: command not found" error leak through?
I'm not seeing that we get a very large increment of user-friendliness
from interposing the "missing" script. In at least one way it's a net
negative: if you go and install bison after getting the error, you will
have to re-run configure to recover, whereas playing dumb would frequently
have left us with the right configuration output already.
regards, tom lane
