Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/05/25/06:23:34
On Tue, 25 May 1999 robert DOT van DOT der DOT boon AT nl DOT pwcglobal DOT com wrote:
> >From what you've noted, I was thinking it would be a lot of work to make
> >Bash SFN buildable.
>
> That was not quite it. It were a couple of issues, not too much work...
My experience is that usually supporting non-LFN platforms is not hard
at all. The small number of problems posted here is typical. That's why
I always recommend to include support for non-LFN platforms.
> - The examples directory is not SFN-clean. Do we want to fix that?
My recommendation would be to fix everything in sight. You can never
know what files would a DJGPP user want to see/use. Unless the
maintainers resist renaming files (most of them won't), there should be
no reason to keep problematic names. In extreme cases, you can include a
file-name change file in the distribution that could be submitted to
DJTAR so that it automatically renames files while unpacking.
> - '-o outputilename' is not a standard option. (SunOS-yacc on our uni
> silently ignores it, and still creates y.tab.c)
For this and other reasons, I would suggest to solve the problem with
y.tab.* differently. Instead of forcing the parser-generator to produce
a certain file name, rename the result, something like this (this is
directly from TeX/Web2C distribution):
y_tab.c y_tab.h: web2c.y
$(YACC) -d -v $(srcdir)/web2c.y
-test -f y.tab.c && mv -f y.tab.c y_tab.c
-test -f y.tab.h && mv -f y.tab.h y_tab.h
This has several advantages:
- it works on Unix as well as on DOS/Windows, and thus the maintainers
will have less problems including it in the official distribution;
- it works automagically both on LFN and non-LFN platforms, because Bison
produces y.tab.* under LFN and y_tab.* without LFN;
- it will work with Yacc as well, even if somebody uses a version ported
to DOS (which produces y_tab.* also).
- if a file y.tab.c is included in the GNU source distribution, DJTAR
will automatically rename it to y_tab.c when LFN support is
unavailable, so the whole thing will still work unaltered.
> And by the way, what are the chances of getting all our
> changes into the official distribution?
Without knowing diddley-squat about the Bash maintainers, I would guess
the chances are pretty good. I have yet to see a single GNU maintainer
who would decline clean patches to support another platform (well,
actually I already saw one such person, but that was a clear exception).
- Raw text -