Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:59:20 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: [mmead@Glock.COM: Re: gm4 & fvwm] Message-ID: <199506280859.BAA07828@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following is from -ports, anyone know about incompatibily problems
between BSD m4 and GNU m4 (in ports)? We're interested to know only
about the BSD -> GNU direction....
Satoshi
-------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:18:33 -0400
From: "matthew c. mead" <mmead@Glock.COM>
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: gm4 & fvwm
On Tue, June 27, 1995 at 01:55:53 (-0700), Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * Since fvwm is built with m4 support, and the BSD m4 contains
> * considerably less functionality than the gnu m4, how about making fvwm
> * depend on gnu m4 and then make it exec that at startup instead of m4?
> Actually, this applies to most of the *wm's in /usr/ports/x11 (AFAIK,
> ctwm, tvtwm and piewm all use m4, what about olvwm?). I think this is
> a good extension than can be very useful, with a relatively small
> one-time cost (fetching & compiling of gm4) for the user, although it
> may be overkill for some of the non-power users.
That's true. I wouldn't say that I'm using it because I'm a
poweruser, though I am (:-). I mainly need it so that I can have a list of
hosts that I do an "xon" to when I want to connect to them (my home
machine's on a T1 connection to the network). Basically I like to exclude
the host I'm on from that as I have a menu for local xterms as well. I
also like the ability to have a single configuration file for the machines
I log into via X. M4 helps a lot with that so that I can just use FVWMDIR
for my ModulePath and similar notions.
> Although I use ctwm, I'm no m4 or gm4 hacker and don't really have a
> strong opinion one way or the other. I certainly won't mind if my
> ctwm automatically pulled in gm4, though -- I'll probably use it some
> day anyway. :)
:-)
> What do other people think? If nobody objects, we can split forces
> and go wm-hacking.
I wouldn't mind patching the ports to do this gm4 compatibility if
someone will commit the changes.
> Oh, and one thing...I assume gm4 is upward-compatible to BSD m4, right?
For everything *I've* done it has been. I'm not totally sure on
this, maybe a comment from someone else who's an m4 hacker would be
appropriate before proceeding.
-matt
--
Matthew C. Mead | Network Administration: Virginia Tech Center for
| Transportation Research -> mmead@ctr.vt.edu
mmead@Glock.COM | Network Administration and Software Development
http://www.Glock.COM/~mmead/ | Consulting: BizNet Technologies -> mmead@bnt.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506280859.BAA07828>