PCH merge bootstrap failure on systems without flex

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

 > From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
 > 
 > On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote:
 > > We want generated files in tar files so that you can build GCC from
 > > a release tarball with a minimum of installed tools.
 > > [...]
 > > We've had this debate before; let's not to it again.
 > 
 > Well, that we've had this debate before doesn't mean we came to a commonly
 > accepted conclusion.
 > 
 > Requiring flex where we already require bison is one thing, but requiring
 > a full development chain including the auto-tools is something we should
 > carefully evaluate.

Agreed.


 > > We don't want them in CVS because we assume people using CVS are
 > > developers and we assume developers can get the tools.
 > 
 > This assumption neglects testers (of which we have too few, especially on
 > not-so-common platforms, and many of which use guest accounts with limited
 > resources to perform their testing).
 > Gerald

Yeah, I'm in that boat.

While flex by itself isn't such a big deal, I think its important to
evaluate the cost when we increase these kinds of dependencies.

Certainly, I'm against deleting auto-tool generated files from CVS.

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Director of Systems Architecture
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Solutions