From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Jun 27 01:56:04 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id BAA17422
          for ports-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:56:04 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA17416
          for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:56:01 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id BAA01428; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:55:53 -0700
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 01:55:53 -0700
Message-Id: <199506270855.BAA01428@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: mmead@Glock.COM
CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199506270509.BAA05510@Glock.COM> (mmead@Glock.COM)
Subject: Re: gm4 & fvwm
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

 * 	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.

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.

Oh, and one thing...I assume gm4 is upward-compatible to BSD m4, right?

Satoshi