Re: Can we remove bison output from cvs?

[Per Bothner <bothner at cygnus dot com>]

> I don't have the luxury of getting the sysadmin to install the latest
> copy of packageX and don't want to maintain these in my home directory. 
> Building egcs already takes up enough space without having 10 other
> tools installed in my home dir. 

In that case, test snapshots (which will have the generated files
in them), rather than the instanteous state of the cvs archive.
Testing the cvs archive is useful to quickly catch new bugs,
but in terms of QA it is better to test the snapshots, because it
tests what the users will downloading.

The cvs archive is primarily for developers, plus people who want to
be on the bleeding edgs.  In both cases, I think it is reasonable
to require that people have bison+makeinfo installed.

> (Again this assumes I don't have the ability to upgrade the system
> bison or the quota to maintain my own copy.)

You have a quota big enough for gcc, but not big enough for
gcc+bison?  I'm sorry, but that does not make sense.  Add a
couple more gcc toolchains, and you will no longer have room
for gcc.

	--Per Bothner
Cygnus Solutions     bothner@cygnus.com     http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner