From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 28 02:00:48 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id CAA29265 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 02:00:48 -0700 Received: from wc.cdrom.com (wc.cdrom.com [192.216.223.37]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA29258 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 02:00:46 -0700 Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181]) by wc.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25795 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 02:00:41 -0700 Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id BAA07828; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:59:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 01:59:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199506280859.BAA07828@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: [mmead@Glock.COM: Re: gm4 & fvwm] From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk 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" 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