Re: flex package POSIX violation

[Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail dot com>]

On 31 December 2017 at 19:26, Steven Penny <svnpenn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

OK that makes it a clearer and tangible problem to me. Thank you for
putting up with my questions.

> [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
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

--
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