This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: "E. Weddington" <eric at umginc dot net>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:07:00 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305311710180.57679@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><3EDB27C9.23675.41F5E8A4@localhost>
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, E. Weddington wrote:
>>>> My bad. I checked last night and you're correct. I don't need bison /
>>>> flex for GCC *releases*, but they are needed to build the weekly
>>>> snapshots.
>>> I consider this a bug, and will happily consider patches that address
>>> this (without requiring a full build as part of snapshot generation).
> Why would you consider this a bug?
Because snapshots should be easy to use and require few prerequisites,
similar to releases. IMHO.
> Why not just explicitly state that these tools (bison/flex) are required
> if building weekly snapshots?
We already do that. Still, it would be nice to make snapshots "cheaper"
to use.
> If you still consider this a bug, do you want me to go ahead fill out a
> PR for this?
Please don't. You're right in that it's actually more of a wish or
enhancement request than a bug.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/