> Technically, the configure script is responsible in a non-ethical/moral sense. I don't follow. Part of the role of a configure script is to accommodate the

> Technically, the configure script is responsible in a non-ethical/moral sense. I don't follow. Part of the role of a configure script is to accommodate the variations between distributions. If a configure script fails to work with a major distro, that generally means the configure script needs fixing. I don't see that ethics have anything to do with it. > In terms of *nix spirit, it sounds like Ubuntu is not being generous in what it accepts. Ubuntu likely isn't actively doing anything in the process here, it probably isn't in a position to accept or reject anything. Ubuntu presumably places certain files in places the configure script fails to check. This kind of variation between distros is annoying, but typical, and again it's part of the reason we use configure scripts in the first place. (Or modern alternatives like CMake.) If the issue turns out to be that Ubuntu has an issue with pkg-config (a package-discovery system with distro integration) failing to find binutils, then yes, the onus would be on Ubuntu to fix it. I don't think that's the case here though.