Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:27:45 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
Message-Id: <7704-Wed19Sep2001212744+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20010919114957.B22205@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT
	Williams on Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:49:57 -0500)
Subject: Re: Bison assertion failure on libc sources
References: <20010916101003 DOT 23685 DOT qmail AT softhome DOT net> <796A27E5802 AT HRZ1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de> <20010919114957 DOT B22205 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
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

> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:49:57 -0500
> From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
> 
> Perhaps this should be done only for this combination
> of bison and djgpp; subsequent versions of bison would
> place these files only in their canonical location, and
> subsequent versions of djgpp would remove the [bison]
> section.

Yes, I believe once DJGPP v2.04 is released without the [bison]
section, we could remove the old directories from the Bison
distributions.

> I understand that these sorts of things can generate lots
> of FAQs, but I feel strongly that bringing djgpp ports
> into full Un*x compliance (wherever possible, and over a
> suitable transition period) is A Good Thing.

As long as this doesn't break users' installations, yes.