Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:16:59 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Tim Van Holder 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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Precedence: bulk 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.