Unusual request: get bison 1.35 back as prev version

martin hollmichel martin.hollmichel@Sun.COM
Wed Jan 29 10:36:00 GMT 2003


we are in favor to do adoptions of our source for new feature/fixes of 
bison. really no problem with that. the problem for us is that we are 
releasing our source code (150MB bziped) of openoffice.org 3-4 times a 
year, and this source code get distributed/mirrored widly. the result is
that we get lot of complains because a newer bison version then may 
break the build again. and not everybody (esp. a windows user) is 
familiar with downloading/applying patches of OOo source code.

I agree with you, redistributing older versions of binaries is really no 
fun and we should avoid this.

> 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.
> Cheers,
> Nicholas

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list