[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DJGPP support for bison
From: |
Juan Manuel Guerrero |
Subject: |
Re: DJGPP support for bison |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:44:37 +0100 |
On 31 Jan 2002 08:08:05, Tim Van Holder wrote:
> > IMHO this is not a good idea. Out-of-the-box configuration almost always
> > implies
> > LFN support and this implies the access to some kind of Win9X. This will
> > exclude
> > all users of old DOS or clones like freedos (DJGPP is a dos compiler and
> > not a WIN32 one).
> > AFAIK this would be against the design rules of DJGPP. To make the point
> > clear,
> > I personally have _no_ preferences concerning this issue, but IMHO it is
> > not worth
> > to exclude a part of the DJGPP users only to avoid the arch/djgpp stuff. It
> > should be
> > clear that a gnu package will never be configurable and compilable
> > out-of-the-box
> > without LFN support. If the djgpp-workers want to support plain DOS, then
> > some
> > kind of config.bat, config.sed, etc must be supplied.
>
> Hmmm. I _think_ recent autoconfs should produce SFN-safe configure
> scripts (provided that the configure.ac author does nothing that breaks
> on SFN, such as request a config.h.in header). I've set up a virtual
> machine running DOS 6.22 so I can test this further; if I have time,
> I'll try to build bison out-of-the-box in that VM.
> Provided that the configuration & build process works under DOS 6.22,
> would you agree that the arch dir is not needed?
If it works I will have no objections. In that case an arch/djgpp dir will
become superfluos.
Regards,
Guerrero, Juan M.