On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> 	I actually quite like the 'NOT', to make it more obvious something
> 	odd/wrong is happening. Actually I wouldn't mind 'make install'
> 	failing if all dependencies are not found, and have to run
> 	'make install IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS=1' to bypass that.
> 	(I'd want the failure message to mention IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS :)

Eh, why castrate your fine dependency system???
We keep track of how we can build dependencies automatically if they
aren't found, and there is NO reason not to do this.

Geez...


 - Hubert

-- 
Hubert Feyrer <hubert@feyrer.de>