Unusual request: get bison 1.35 back as prev version

[Volker Quetschke]

Hi Martin,

this is going to be very Off-Topic here, I crossposted
to dev@openoffice.org. (Please answer only there.)

> it's funny to see the bison story here endless as well :(.
> 
> since bison development went back to live again, I think it was with 
> version > 1.28 we saw lots of regressions with bison on OpenOffice.org. 
> This is not what I expected if the major release number is not changing.
> 
> Volker, wouldn't it be the easiest to provide the latestet known (for 
> OpenOffice.org) working bison binary on the tools.openoffice.org website 
> ? I would be still a hazzle for OOo developers to have one more download 
> but I fear if bison development will went further in that quality we saw 
> in the last half year, this might be the best solution.

I thought about a "last-stable" mirror of the needed cygwin tools,
either on tools.openoffice.org, or ooo.ximian.com. (Michael M., would
that be OK?). Not for all packages, but only for the needed packages
to build OOo. All have their correspondent source packages, there should
be no licence problem.

Later on I will update my cygwin to latest everything, including bison,
and track down the changes needed to make OOo 1.0.2 compile with current
bison. AFAIK it works with OO643C branch.

> Volker, maybe we can volunteer to test new bison versions, before they 
> get released on cygwin in the future ?
Ah, well, you mean annonced to be working with OOo. ;-)

If Michael doesn't object, I will setup a cygwin setup.exe compatible
download place for bison 1.35 on ooo.ximian.com.

Bye
    Volker

> Martin Hollmichel
> Tools OpenOffice.org Project Lead
> 
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:23:55AM +0100, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Can I suggest that a much less intrusive solution would be to provide
>>>>>> patches to the affected .y files to get them to work with the latest
>>>>>> version of bison?  Then people just have to apply a patch and move
>>>>>> on, rather than having to download an executable and figure out what
>>>>>> to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, yes, this just means a: do a cvs checkout for OOO_STABLE_1.
>>>>> Unfortunately you cannot request such things from "newbies".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm suggesting a patch file downloadable from your site which they
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not my side, I'm just a volunteer.
>>
>>
>>
>> So am I.
>>
>>
>>>> would apply with 'patch< file' and then just use the released version
>>>> of bison to build things. That is, IMO, much simpler than what you're
>>>> proposing.  There is no cvs or new version of bison involved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh, <http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/1.0.2/source.html> and
>>> <http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/build_windows.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> *You* are going to be providing a bison download right?  Why can't *you*
>> provide a patch file as well as you can provide a bison binary?
>>
>>
>>> I don't have any authority in that project, the build of the OOo 1.0.2
>>> sources is tested with bison 1.35 and current cygwin 1.3.x tools.
>>> (It's called stable release)
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you're probably under the impression that there are massive
>> changes involved in getting .y files to build under the newer version
>> of bison.  I sincerely doubt that that is true.  I'll bet the patch
>> file would be minimal.
>>
>> cgf
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20030128/7a0b845a/attachment.sig>