Le 28 déc. 2012 à 12:39, "Gary V. Vaughan" <g...@gnu.org> a écrit :
> On 28 Dec 2012, at 18:00, Akim Demaille <a...@lrde.epita.fr> wrote: >> Le 28 déc. 2012 à 10:35, "Gary V. Vaughan" <g...@gnu.org> a écrit : >>> Salut Akim! >> >> Hi Gary! Long time no see :) > > Too long! :) Agreed :) >> Can't all these bootstraps be merged? Bison used to have a forked >> one too, but Joel's and Jim's efforts resulted Bison's using the >> stock bootstrap now. > > Yes please! I rewrote bootstrap from the ground up to meet shortcomings > that prevented gnulib bootstrap from being used by Libtool and M4, and from > being forked by tar, bison and others. I studied every other bootstrap script > I could lay my hands on in the hope that the rewrite would be a strict super- > set of those. I believe I succeeded. > > Unfortunately, the result is very large (it has a lot to do!) and with my > frustration at having spent several months on it, and then not being able > to find someone with sufficient time to review the monster and push it to > gnulib, > I upset a few important people with my rants :( So, rather than continue to > annoy the good gnulib folks with my incessant pestering, I'm simply using the > rewrite in all my own projects, and helping a handful of other adopters make > the best use of it. > > I still think that the rewrite is technically superior and much more > maintainable than the gnulib script, although gnulib bootstrap has definitely > closed the gap somewhat in the last year or two. If you'd like to try it > out, I > can update the bison bootstrap.conf I made in 2010 to work with the latest > git revisions of bison and bootstrap? If you think there's a chance we could really merge the efforts, then that would be nice! What evidence can we have that it might be accepted this time, or rejected again?
