+
+# POSIX will say in a future version that running "rm -f" with no argument
+# is OK; and we want to be able to make that assumption in our Makefile
+# recipes. So use an aggressive probe to check that the usage we want is
+# actually supported "in the wild" to an acceptable degree.
+# See automake bug#10828.
+# To make any issue more visible, cause the running configure to be aborted
+# by default if the 'rm' program in use doesn't match our expectations; the
+# user can still override this though.
+if rm -f && rm -fr && rm -rf; then : OK; else
+ cat >&2 <<'END'
+Oops!
+
+Your 'rm' program seems unable to run without file operands specified
+on the command line, even when the '-f' option is present. This is contrary
+to the behaviour of most rm programs out there, and not conforming with
+the upcoming POSIX standard: <http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=542>
+
+Please tell bug-automake@gnu.org about your system, including the value
+of your $PATH and any error possibly output before this message. This
+can help us improve future automake versions.
+
+END
+ if test x"$ACCEPT_INFERIOR_RM_PROGRAM" = x"yes"; then
+ echo 'Configuration will proceed anyway, since you have set the' >&2
+ echo 'ACCEPT_INFERIOR_RM_PROGRAM variable to "yes"' >&2
+ echo >&2
+ else
+ cat >&2 <<'END'
+Aborting the configuration process, to ensure you take notice of the issue.
+
+You can download and install GNU coreutils to get an 'rm' implementation
+that behaves properly: <http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/>.
+
+If you want to complete the configuration process using your problematic
+'rm' anyway, export the environment variable ACCEPT_INFERIOR_RM_PROGRAM
+to "yes", and re-run configure.
+
+END
+ AC_MSG_ERROR([Your 'rm' program is bad, sorry.])
+ fi
+fi])