Following up on my own earlier posting:
> Earnie Boyd wrote, quoting me:
>>> And yes, I consider this a bug in `binutils'; users downloading and
>>> building from an unmodified release tarball should NOT need to have
>>> either of these tools installed. I'll file a bug report, when I
>>> can find the time.
>> Actually this has to do with the timestamps of the generated files
>> compared to the timestamps of the source file that creates the
> I did wonder if this might be the problem, but I haven't had time to
> verify it.
Actually, this *isn't* the problem on this occasion.
I've now had a very quick preliminary look into it. When I remove both
`flex' and `bison', the build blows up when trying to create `arparse.o';
this should be built from a generated `arparse.c', which IMO *should* be
in the release tarball, but it isn't; there is only `arparse.y'.
So, the release tarball is incomplete; so much for bulletproof Makefiles,
when `automake' is used to generate them -- making the `dist' target
should have been sufficient to ensure that these dependencies on `flex'
and `bison' were removed, as required by GNU Coding Standards; this is
clearly broken, for our `binutils' distribution.