Re: flex package POSIX violation

[Steven Penny <svnpenn at gmail dot com>]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:47:11, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> How POSIX compliant is Cygwin supposed to be? I don't think many of
> the tools are 100% POSIX compliant but are good enough so does making
> the symlink between flex and lex make it more compliant or less so
> because the tool doesn't meet 100% compliance?

are these some questions to really want to have asked?

POSIX standard demands a "lex" utility - so providing a "lex -> flex" symlink
makes the Cygwin package more POSIX compliant - im sorry but i cant see how you
couldnt understand why that would be the case. and while yes 100% compliance is
certainly an asymptote, that doesnt mean we shouldnt even try - especially when
it is a simple fix, as in this case.

also, per my post [1] you quoted, and yaakov post [2], most major distros are
doing this already.

[1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00296.html
[2] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00298.html


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple