Unusual request: get bison 1.35 back as prev version

Nicholas Wourms nwourms@netscape.net
Tue Jan 28 13:29:00 GMT 2003

martin.hollmichel@sun.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 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.

I fail to understand why backporting the .y file changes 
from HEAD is such a big deal?  Rather then asking people to 
install an unofficial bison, why not provide a patch?  I'm 
sure if you rummaged through some of the distros out there, 
someone has already patched the stable OO to work with 
bison-1.50+ (I know Mandrake 9 uses 1.75).  There are many 
reasons why this is a *good* idea, not withstanding it would 
prevent any erroneous bug reports to our mailing list from 
people not using the distributed bison.  Plus it saves you 
the hassle of having to provide the compiled binary.  This 
saves time for both the OO community and the cygwin 
community.  And, before you say it, I *seriously* doubt that 
few minor modifications to OO's .y files would introduce 
meaningful instability.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list