Does the M4 package need to be identified as a "host requirement"?

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 6 17:58:57 PDT 2008


Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:

> I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be 
> slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
> 
> We already have bison as a host req. Bison depends on m4, so most 
> distros I know will have m4 installed as a dependency of bison. Even 
> building bison from source requires that you first build m4, anyway. So 
> I tend to think of Bison and M4 going hand in hand. Why add an extra 
> thing to build if by far the majority of systems will have already had 
> m4 installed due to the bison req?

I lean to agreeing with Jeremy on this one. If M4 is probably present
on the host (due to it being required by bison), then it is one less
package that needs to be built in Chapter 5.

We need to resolve this issue, so let's make some sort of decision
one way or another. Other suggestions are welcome.

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
19:56:00 up 43 min, 1 user, load average: 0.36, 0.20, 0.11



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list