Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(a)DoCS.UU.SE&gt; wrote: Please read my messages carefully. We *don't* have 20 -I one the command line, and we don't want to. That's the whole point. Obviously, we can rewrite particular targets in Makefile.in in order to add the proper -I flags only to the concerned sources. We have to do this already at some places. However, this is even dirtier and we want to avoid this as much as possible. This one doesn't prevent you from using the other one, if you consider it cleaner which is arguable. On the contrary, the current state breaks our solution, without bringing any benefit to anybody (see Andreas'message). "supposed to work" sounds really subjective in this context. Anyway, that shouldn't prevent us from improving the software by making it work other ways too (let me remind you that it worked before 7.0). You can't image how much you're right !! Postgres happens to install a header file named `config.h' in its installation directory. As a consequence, if we follow your reasoning and if, as you suggest, we don't rely on the semantic difference of "" and <>, no application using autoconf will be able to compile a postgres support !! There's really nothing to be proud of :-( It is not. It is trying to improve autoconf when we find deficiencies (just like I'm trying to do with you here): the autoconf developers are aware of this and as a matter of fact, the next version of autoconf will have the cache disable by default. Our script will little by little get simpler, as both communities will benefit from the work. That's the way I like free software development the more. Yes :-). Thank Steven Baur for that. -- / / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / EPITA / LRDE mailto:didier＠lrde.epita.fr /_/ / /_/ / /__ / 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77 94276 Kremlin-Bicêtre cedex Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99