Re: Symlinks to generic names

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 08:34:23AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>      John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
>      
>      > Some software (rightly or wrongly) tries to build with "lex" and "yacc" .  Guix does not provide these.
>      > Instead we have "flex" and "bison".  Most operating systems have symbolic links lex -> flex and yacc -> bison.
>      > Shouldn't we provide these too?
>      
>      We had a similar discussion for ‘cc’ vs. ‘gcc’, but in practice ‘cc’ has
>      been rare enough that it’s not worth bothering.
>
>      I believe Autoconf-based packages do not have any problems with ‘flex’
>      and ‘bison’.  What package was it?  How hard is it to work around?
>      
> It's probably not too hard.  It just seems to me, that it makes more sense to do the 
> workaround in 1 package, than in N.

I understand the point, but that does not answer my question.  :-)

I mean, I don’t think it’s worth discussing it until we have at least
two or more occurrences of the problem.

Ludo’.