>It has always bothered me a great deal that autoconf required GNU M4 and
>only GNU M4 (though that clearly wasn't the case in the past when I used
>NetBSD M4 with it, and clearly isn't the case today in that it now works
>with the OpenBSD M4). I can readily accept that there are inferior
>imple
[ On , March 23, 2000 at 17:45:21 (+0100), Akim Demaille wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Autoconf and gnu-m4 dependency
>
> Juergen> Now, what to do? Two things: Firstly, *explicit*
> Juergen> documentation of all the stuff in autoconf that depends on
> Juergen> undocumented stu
Well, I don't see a problem in having to add features to OpenBSD m4 to stay
in synch with what autoconf needs from gnu-m4.
As long as those features are not gratuitous, and just put there to annoy
me and make sure autoconf only works with gnu-m4, I won't complain too
much :)
I'll admit to not h
> "Juergen" == Juergen A Erhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> First of all, undocumented features can't be relied
Juergen> upon... if it's not documented, it might not exist in the
Juergen> next version.
I agree, it's just a matter of struggling with René if needed :)
Juergen> Now,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Akim,
Akim> So yes, we do depend upon non documented features of GNU m4,
Akim> but it is precisely because we know quite well our tool, and
Akim> know it is that single one whi
> "Marc" == Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Marc,
Marc> I believe this to be of benefit to everybody... Apart from
Marc> copyright issues, which autoconf people probably don't really
Marc> care about (or probably not in the same direction that we do),
Marc> this does mean that auto
