Re: fig2dev, pstoedit, epstool

[John W. Eaton]

On 29-Sep-2010, Michael D Godfrey wrote:

| On 09/29/2010 11:23 AM, bpabbott wrote:
| 
|     I've been wondering if tests should be made for gs, fig2dev, pstoedit, and
|     epstool. Each of these are used to support the backends.
|    
|     Thoughts?
| 
| Seems reasonable to me.

As these are only run-time requirements, is there really a need to
check them at configure time?  Remember that the system that runs
configure may not be the same as the one that is actually running the
resulting binary, so even if the check succeeds at configure time, the
tool may not be available when it is needed at run time.  If you think
the configure checks would be helpful, then go ahead and add them, but
I think only a warning should be issued that the tools are needed to
generate some graphics formats.

Other than that, I would like to see warnings or errors about the
missing tools only happen when they are needed.  It looks like we
already have errors in place for the missing tools when they are
needed, so I think the only thing that needs to be done is to remove
the warnings from the __print_parse_opts__ function.

jwe