On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:16:36AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:47:01AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > Using GNUm4 under FreeBSD makes everything work... > > > > > > > > That is not a restriction we want to add if at all possible. > > > > > > Note that this is for developers only. Users never use/need M4. > > > > > > This simply means a developer needs: > > > > > > autoconf, libtool, GNU m4 > > > > > > Not a biggy in my book. > > > > > > It would be nice to find the discrepancy with *BSD m4 and submit bugs back > > > to their M4 team. > > > > IMO, this is the exact same as requiring gmake to build, which we said was > > a no-no. Same reasoning applies here. > > Sorry... not quite the same. > > Users would need gmake to build. Users would not need M4 even installed, let > alone any particular variety. > > Developers need GNU m4. > > m4 is only used to build "configure" and to generate apr_private.h.in. That > stuff happens "on our side" of the tarball. The users get a tarball with all > that in there, so they'll never need autoconf, libtool, or m4.
That is an incredibly fine line. We are an Open Source project, and since currently in order to add an external module into the build, all of our users are developers. I do not like distinguishing between those people who are going to develop the code and those who are going to just use it. This change makes it difficult for a "user" to make a change to our configure system and contribute it back to us unless they are using GNUm4. That is a bad thing. We want to lower the bar to allow people to contribute, not raise it. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
