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

DJ Lucas dj at
Mon Oct 6 18:48:53 PDT 2008

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 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.
It has to built in Chpater 5 for the chapter6 GMP regardless.  When is 
the only question.  I see no need to add a host requirement if m4 can be 
built right after binutils' first pass.  I suppose it could be moved way 
up in the chain for Chapter 6, but I though that we wanted all tools 
compiled by the last built version of gcc and binutils.  Obviously, 
BinUtils, GMP and MPFR are exceptions to this rule (but are compiled by 
the same version of the target compiler type and libs), should M4 be an 
exception also?

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list