From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Symlinks to generic names Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 19:06:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87bnyp4cf7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20140201082105.GA1181@jocasta.intra> <87zjma3r40.fsf@gnu.org> <20140202074657.GA3860@intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35461) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WA1bb-0006Lf-3e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:17:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WA1Wo-0000tn-ML for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:12:44 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:54844) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WA1Wo-0000ti-FG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:12:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140202074657.GA3860@intra> (John Darrington's message of "Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:46:58 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org John Darrington skribis: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 08:34:23AM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > John Darrington skribis: >=20=20=20=20=20=20 > > 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 s= ymbolic links lex -> flex and yacc -> bison. > > Shouldn't we provide these too? >=20=20=20=20=20=20 > We had a similar discussion for =E2=80=98cc=E2=80=99 vs. =E2=80=98gc= c=E2=80=99, but in practice =E2=80=98cc=E2=80=99 has > been rare enough that it=E2=80=99s not worth bothering. > > I believe Autoconf-based packages do not have any problems with =E2= =80=98flex=E2=80=99 > and =E2=80=98bison=E2=80=99. What package was it? How hard is it t= o work around? >=20=20=20=20=20=20 > It's probably not too hard. It just seems to me, that it makes more sens= e to do the=20 > workaround in 1 package, than in N. I understand the point, but that does not answer my question. :-) I mean, I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s worth discussing it until we hav= e at least two or more occurrences of the problem. Ludo=E2=80=99.