X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10202201505.AA19514@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: bison and djgpp.env
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:05:52 -0600 (CST)
Cc: tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be (Tim Van Holder),
   ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De (Juan Manuel Guerrero),
   eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020220110537.21448N@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 20, 2002 11:10:32 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> It's okay for newer versions of Bison not to look at these variables, or 
> to look inside /dev/env/DJDIR/share first.  But older ports should 
> continue to work with newer djdev releases, IMHO.

I agree with Eli on this one - maybe we add documentation saying why
they are there, but they ought to stay.

> I don't agree that it's reasonable.  Users could have their reasons for 
> not upgrading, and we shouldn't second-guess them.

A perfect example is the size and memory requirements of the new images.
When there is a run time option to make the new images disk and memory
footprint as small as the older versions, maybe I'd reconsider.

Read the message from the poor guy with 2Mb total memory again.