This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Unusual request: get bison 1.35 back as prev version


Hi,

we are in favor to do adoptions of our source for new feature/fixes of bison. really no problem with that. the problem for us is that we are releasing our source code (150MB bziped) of openoffice.org 3-4 times a year, and this source code get distributed/mirrored widly. the result is
that we get lot of complains because a newer bison version then may break the build again. and not everybody (esp. a windows user) is familiar with downloading/applying patches of OOo source code.

I agree with you, redistributing older versions of binaries is really no fun and we should avoid this.

grettings,
Martin

I fail to understand why backporting the .y file changes from HEAD is such a big deal? Rather then asking people to install an unofficial bison, why not provide a patch? I'm sure if you rummaged through some of the distros out there, someone has already patched the stable OO to work with bison-1.50+ (I know Mandrake 9 uses 1.75). There are many reasons why this is a *good* idea, not withstanding it would prevent any erroneous bug reports to our mailing list from people not using the distributed bison. Plus it saves you the hassle of having to provide the compiled binary. This saves time for both the OO community and the cygwin community. And, before you say it, I *seriously* doubt that few minor modifications to OO's .y files would introduce meaningful instability.

Cheers,
Nicholas




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]