X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=EMPmC+SmuE2KOK9M
	/7vo26n1zeytPtCJnVHhG1WEt/nYytV42cMEaAav1ShzG+SHzkMcMwY7HoWP48oO
	t0G1XBOeqH48tYuZw1w0lNKWg2ahjZjs/14T/gPOKhuXcdeIYpa1OZ4e2bp0Rx0i
	VR7ROxA8ezPiWtbvExPj4wH51rE=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=vv0bucfXmbGuhXhGayNxnF
	3PmPc=; b=HJPMseK9fzBLn7jt4JS93InG6bNUpxO9843EHpQg8L14OpRhbRKZsr
	0+5SX7tXnUoTDsBU37HYQL0Wewil+eF+zU+9g3WyyBbHWiWeyF0fiuiJyDzJzuoo
	YpzCGvUJDKrqCzzG1g9nwImyw+qdMcUB+XYuXlPxuz56Mzs4/jPSY=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:8af6428, H*MI:sk:8af6428, H*i:sk:8af6428, mechanism
X-HELO:	mailout12.t-online.de
Subject:	Re: Standard LEX variable doesn't work in Make.
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<d06883e8208624afb5d094ebd3e78375 AT mail DOT kylheku DOT com> <11448207-52c8-6745-999f-48a4534bbc41 AT t-online DOT de> <eee3ac0a-6715-1517-9045-2e2ac8544c66 AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca> <4805811d-559f-a49d-9b2f-5041a0b94b08 AT t-online DOT de> <8af64289-18cd-d14a-0fea-10e80d2752f8 AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
From:	=?UTF-8?Q?Hans-Bernhard_Br=c3=b6ker?= <HBBroeker AT t-online DOT de>
Message-ID:	<357b8785-5a7f-7d64-180c-9ee410fe8d86@t-online.de>
Date:	Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:42:45 +0100
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<8af64289-18cd-d14a-0fea-10e80d2752f8@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Am 26.11.2016 um 04:42 schrieb Brian Inglis:

> On Debian both yacc and bison.yacc are alternatives;

Not exactly.  bison.yacc is a script; the same one that Cygwin's bison 
package installed as /usr/bin/yacc.  Debian obviously renamed it.  They 
have to do that because their yacc is an alternative.  And that's 
because there are at least 4 programs available in the package 
repository that can fulfill that role: bison, bison++, byacc and btyacc.

Nor do they use alternatives to build their symlink lex -> flex.

>> I don't think 'alternatives' is applicable here. We're not looking at
>> several packages providing the same file --- we're looking at
>>
>> * single packages offering the same executable under more than one
>> name, causing it to express different personalities, like ex ->
>> vi.exe, view -> vi.exe, latex --> pdftex.exe,
>
> and all vi, vim, nvi, elvis etc. links are handled via alternatives:
> it's used as the canonical example in

... the canonical example for multiple packages supplying the same 
program, 'vi'.  Cygwin has only 'vim', not nvi or elvis, so there's no 
need for the alternatives mechanism.

Just because alternative manages symlinks in /usr/bin, that doesn't mean 
every symlink in /usr/bin has to, or even should, be managed by it.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -