Date: 20 Jan 2000 23:14:25 -0800 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, pst@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, mita@jp.FreeBSD.org, max@FreeBSD.org, joep@di.nl, hanspb@persbraten.vgs.no, fenner@FreeBSD.org, andy@icc.surw.chel.su Subject: Re: USE_BISON Message-ID: <vqc66wnkib2.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: John Polstra's message of "Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:02:20 -0800 (PST)" References: <XFMail.000120190220.jdp@polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> * But is it really worth it? If the right tool is available then it * seems better to use it rather than add special patches to a bunch of * ports. Sorry, I didn't mean that. If you are using something in bison that yacc doesn't have, by all means use bison. I just wanted those that call bison (for no good reason) to be changed to yacc if that's a simple matter of 's/bison -y/yacc/'. * Also, is a new USE_BISON directive needed? Wouldn't a BUILD_DEPENDS * accomplish the same thing? bison is only missing in newer -current. bsd.port.mk will take care of the version differences, just like it did with perl5 before. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqc66wnkib2.fsf>