John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 08:34:23AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis: > > > Some software (rightly or wrongly) tries to build with "lex" and > "yacc" . Guix does not provide these. > > Instead we have "flex" and "bison". Most operating systems have > symbolic links lex -> flex and yacc -> bison. > > Shouldn't we provide these too? > > We had a similar discussion for ‘cc’ vs. ‘gcc’, but in practice ‘cc’ has > been rare enough that it’s not worth bothering. > > I believe Autoconf-based packages do not have any problems with ‘flex’ > and ‘bison’. What package was it? How hard is it to work around? > > It's probably not too hard. It just seems to me, that it makes more sense to > do the > workaround in 1 package, than in N.
I understand the point, but that does not answer my question. :-) I mean, I don’t think it’s worth discussing it until we have at least two or more occurrences of the problem. Ludo’.
