Unusual request: get bison 1.35 back as prev version

Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Wed Jan 29 15:07:00 GMT 2003

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:35:25AM +0100, martin hollmichel wrote:
>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.

I think we have gotten the picture about how new bisons are a problem by

>and not everybody (esp.  a windows user) is familiar with
>downloading/applying patches of OOo source code.

Then why not familiarize them?  If they are interested in building from
source, then surely they should be able to go the extra few steps of
downloading a patch file, cd'ing to a directory and typing "patch <
thefile".  That seems a lot more preferable (and more *normal*) than
telling them to install a new binary somewhere to deal with their problems.

Either that or just include the full generated .c file on a web site or
in the distribution.  I assume your make files only build the .c files if
they are out of date, so copying a new .c file in should eliminate the need
to run bison.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list