On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 02:08:18AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
but the fact is that the check is not precise enough.
It is very precise. It does not check for a compiler, because having a compiler installed for compiling is obvious. Having those additional packages installed is less obvious.
True, but because the compiler is so obvious it is easy to overlook.
At the very least the message is not clear enough. It claims to check for this package but in fact it isn't the only requirements, and when the check says that the package wasn't found, that can be incorrect. I don't think we should have error messages that can be false like that.
I've seen this too, where I had a compiler installed but forgot to set CC or link it to gcc or some such thing. Wouldn't the more correct workaround be to do a compiler check?
-Corey