Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:55:06 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC]: m4 update Message-ID: <20091030135506.GA69931@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20091030102131.T91695@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20091029215312.GA34302@freebsd.org> <20091030102131.T91695@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:25:34AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Roman Divacky wrote: > > >hi > > > >I made a patch that updates our in-tree m4 to the version from OpenBSD. > >Their version contains some gnu extensions and generally is modernized > >and rewritten. > > > >The patch (you have to in src/usr.bin/m4 for it to apply): > > > > > > http://vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/m4.patch > > > > > >I added their ohash* implementation to the m4 subdir as it uses it. I > >am not sure this is the correct way but it works for now. > > > >So the question is - do we want this at all? If so, is this the way we > >want it? > > > >I am open to all comments, thank you! > > The only comment I have at this point is that this is a huge update to > a somewhat fragile tool. It'll need a lot of testing before it should > be comitted this way; not sure how many ports use this rather than gm4 > or if they could be switched over after that. I'd at least ask portmgr > for an exp run. yes.. I already have one exp ports build queued for unzip enabling. I also kind of hoped that people would test this patch if I announce it ;) fwiw - netbsd and openbsd use this version of m4
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091030135506.GA69931>