Hi Akim, > I was suggesting that the macro _itself_ could just > run bison on a file with the %require.
This sounds better than the existing code that runs '--version'. What about users who have non-released versions installed? I think the %require solution will be on par with the --version solution, right? What about competing programs (like e.g. clang claims compatibility with gcc)? Do competing programs for bison exist and need to be worried about? At configure time, both solutions are nearly on par: the time to create a temporary file is negligible. And both will fail the same way for a 'bison' program that references missing shared libraries. Patch welcome! Bruno
