[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Debian changes for Bison
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Debian changes for Bison |
Date: |
21 Mar 2002 10:57:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) |
| > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:46:43 +0100 (CET)
| > From: "Richard B. Kreckel" <address@hidden>
| >
| > I noticed a couple of minor typo fixes
| > and redundant patches in Debian's bison_1.34-1.diff.gz.
|
| That diff contains the following changes:
|
| * Install a shell script called "yacc" that looks like this:
|
| #!/bin/sh
| exec bison -y "$@"
|
| POSIX 1003.1-2001 requires that there be a "yacc" command, and I
| think it's reasonable for Bison to install a shell script like this.
| However, it might break sites that install both Bison and Yacc
| (e.g. Berkeley Yacc) so I'm tempted to say that this should be
| deferred to a major release, not a minor bugfix update.
Why not, indeed.
| * Patch a typo in po/es.po that could lead to a core dump. I
| installed this on the Bison maintenance branch (it wasn't needed on
| the development branch, I'm not sure why).
Because I don't update it from the TP. I regularly update 1.3x from
the TP, and regularly fix that problem. I don't understand how it
escaped this time, given that Gettext now rejects it (it is because of
this message, BTW, that newer Gettext perform this check).
| * Change indentation in src/print.c. I didn't see the need for this,
| so I left this alone.
???
| * Change LIBOBJS to LIB@&address@hidden I don't know why this change is
| needed, so I left it out for now. (Personally I think we should
| drop the ansi2knr support, but now's probably not a good time to do
| that on the maintenance branch anyway.)
Err, that's normally needed. Weird that my Autoconf doesn't complain!
| * Modify configure.in to use Autoconf 2.52 rather than Autoconf 2.52g,
| and modify a lot of other stuff that flows from this change (don't
| use AC_CONFIG_TESTDIR, AC_FUNC_STRNLEN; move files config.guess,
| config.hin). I can see why Debian would want to avoid test versions
| of Autoconf, but going back to 2.52 is too risky, so I installed the
| following patch instead, on both the maintenance and development branches:
Excellent! Thanks.
| 2002-03-20 Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
|
| * configure.in (AC_PREREQ): 2.53.
|
| Index: configure.in
| ===================================================================
| RCS file: /cvsroot/bison/bison/configure.in,v
| retrieving revision 1.39.2.46
| retrieving revision 1.39.2.47
| diff -p -u -r1.39.2.46 -r1.39.2.47
| --- configure.in 12 Mar 2002 16:52:20 -0000 1.39.2.46
| +++ configure.in 20 Mar 2002 22:44:00 -0000 1.39.2.47
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
| # Configure template for GNU Bison. -*-Autoconf-*-
| #
| -# Copyright 2001, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
| +# Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
| #
| # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
| # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
| @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
| # 02111-1307 USA
|
| # We need a recent Autoconf to run a recent Autotest.
| -AC_PREREQ(2.52g)
| +AC_PREREQ(2.53)
|
| AC_INIT([GNU Bison], [1.34a], address@hidden)
| AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(config)
|
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, (continued)
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Paul Eggert, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/19
- Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/20
- Re: Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Debian changes for Bison, Paul Eggert, 2002/03/20
- Re: Debian changes for Bison,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/14