Re: flex package POSIX violation

[Steven Penny <svnpenn at gmail dot com>]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:43:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Which is why I wanted to see where this was going. Are these fixes
> just looking for low hanging fruit to be POSIX compliant, or are these
> needing larger amounts of resources to be 'compliant'? If the
> flex->lex link fails some sort of POSIX test, are people going to need
> Cygwin porters to fix those? Also is there an easy line for "this is
> compliant enough?"

Here is a simple demonstration of the problem:

   $ cat xr.l
   %option main
   %%
   ya printf("zu");
   %%

   $ make xr
   lex  -t xr.l > xr.c
   /bin/sh: lex: command not found
   make: *** [<builtin>: xr.c] Error 127
   rm xr.c

now of course you can work around this by "make LEX=flex xr" or similar, but no
major Linux distro makes you do this, as they already include "lex" vis-a-vis
the symlink to flex.

[1] http://gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables


--
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