Date:	Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:16:59 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU Bison 1.29 uploaded
In-Reply-To:	<1000365462.29678.3.camel@bender.falconsoft.be>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010913111232.354A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 13 Sep 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> On Thu, 2001-09-13 at 08:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > I can't say I'm happy with this change.  It could easily cause subtle 
> > problems for those who don't follow instructions.  It also means removing 
> > these lines from djgpp.env in the next DJGPP release means we could break
> > Bison for people who don't upgrade Bison when they download djdev204.zip.
> > 
> > Why was this change necessary?
> 
> Probably to fall in line with the canonical GNU file locations (i.e.
> $prefix/share/$package for package-specific files); and having /dev/env
> support makes that possible.
> Having these settings in djgpp.env was probably a mistake anyway;
> overrides like that always make creating a cleaner port harder (for
> exactly the reasons you give).

You misunderstood: by ``this change'' I meant the directory into which
the parsers install when you unzip bsnNNNb.zip, not some change in the 
sources.  How we package the binary distribution is entirely under our
control, and don't make the porting job any harder.

So let me rephrase: why couldn't bsn129b.zip install bison.hairy and 
bison.simple into %DJDIR%/lib?  This would avoid the need for editing 
djgpp.env, and also avoid breaking backward compatibility.

- Raw text -