Is it OK to replace m4 with GNU m4?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Larry Lindstrom

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 4:22:13 AM3/19/03
to

Hi Experts:

Sorry, I forgot to crosspost this from the
X86 Solaris group. I think this is the same
issue on SPARCs.

I'm getting absolutely nowhere trying to get
my first simple autoconf and automake project to
work.

Before I start pestering everyone, I'd like
to make sure I have all the current components
on my Solaris 8 10/00, MU 7, recommended patches
from a three week old download.

My autoconf is version 2.13 and my automake
is version 1.4. I don't know how to test the
version number for m4, but it's at /usr/ccs/bin.

I downloaded autoconf 2.57 from the GNU site,
unzip and untar, and run ./configure. I get
this error, "configure: error: GNU M4 1.4 is
required".

This is my primary development machine, and I
would never do anything to compromise it's ability
to use Forte C++. I know M4 is used by the C
preprocessor, is there any problem with bringing
the GNU M4 into my development environment?

Thanks
Larry

Casper H.S. Dik

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 4:32:11 AM3/19/03
to
Larry Lindstrom <lar...@aracnet.com> writes:

> This is my primary development machine, and I
>would never do anything to compromise it's ability
>to use Forte C++. I know M4 is used by the C
>preprocessor, is there any problem with bringing
>the GNU M4 into my development environment?

Never replace system components; install replacement
components in different locatiosn, preferrably under
different names (e.g., gm4)

Casper

Larry Lindstrom

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 5:32:02 AM3/19/03
to

Thanks Casper:

That sounds like good advice. What is the proper
method to make GNU m4 available to autoconf and
automake, and the original m4 available to Forte
when I run make and perform the compile? If I name
GNU m4 "gm4", how can autoconf and autotool find and
use it?

I haven't studied libtool yet. Does m4 play a
roll in that?

Thanks for your guidance, you are a great asset
to all in the Solaris development community.

Thanks
Larry

Dave Uhring

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 8:24:42 AM3/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:32:02 +0000, Larry Lindstrom wrote:

> That sounds like good advice. What is the proper
> method to make GNU m4 available to autoconf and
> automake, and the original m4 available to Forte
> when I run make and perform the compile? If I name
> GNU m4 "gm4", how can autoconf and autotool find and
> use it?

The GNU tools will find gm4 as long as it is in your PATH.

Larry Lindstrom

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 3:59:03 PM3/19/03
to
Thanks Casper and Dave:

I built GNU m4, renamed it and put /usr/local/bin
at the front of my path, and for the first time the
sample code from "GNU autoconf, automake, and libtool"
works when I try to build it on a Solaris PC.

I started studying the Dubois imake book a week
ago, was advised to turn my efforts to autoconf and
automake. I couldn't understand the text because I
didn't realize that the GNU autoconf doc's index of
the "AC_" macros were listed without that pesky
leading "AC_" in their names.

This has been really frustrating. I'm starting a
new project and I thought it would be nice to build
it using portability tools. I've had a lot of grief
learning this tool that's supposed to save me grief.
I'm starting to wonder what else will bite me.

Anyway, I appreciate your help.

Thanks
Larry

Philip Brown

unread,
Mar 25, 2003, 7:21:36 PM3/25/03
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:59:03 GMT, lar...@aracnet.com wrote:
>Thanks Casper and Dave:
>
> I built GNU m4, renamed it and put /usr/local/bin
>at the front of my path, and for the first time the
>sample code from "GNU autoconf, automake, and libtool"
>works when I try to build it on a Solaris PC.

That is a hack job.

the better solution would be to simply install automake, autoconf, and
GNU m4 from www.blastwave.org, which are all correctly configured to work
together without you having to do any nasty hacks like that.

--
http://www.blastwave.org/ for solaris pre-packaged binaries with pkg-get
Organized by the author of pkg-get
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages