Re: DJGPP support for bison

[Juan Manuel Guerrero]

On 31 Jan 2002 08:08:05, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > IMHO this is not a good idea. Out-of-the-box configuration almost always 
> > implies
> > LFN support and this implies the access to some kind of Win9X. This will 
> > exclude
> > all users of old DOS or clones like freedos (DJGPP is a dos compiler and 
> > not a WIN32 one).
> > AFAIK this would be against the design rules of DJGPP. To make the point 
> > clear,
> > I personally have _no_ preferences concerning this issue, but IMHO it is 
> > not worth
> > to exclude a part of the DJGPP users only to avoid the arch/djgpp stuff. It 
> > should be
> > clear that a gnu package will never be configurable and compilable 
> > out-of-the-box
> > without LFN support. If the djgpp-workers want to support plain DOS, then 
> > some
> > kind of config.bat, config.sed, etc must be supplied.
>
> Hmmm.  I _think_ recent autoconfs should produce SFN-safe configure
> scripts (provided that the configure.ac author does nothing that breaks
> on SFN, such as request a config.h.in header).  I've set up a virtual
> machine running DOS 6.22 so I can test this further; if I have time,
> I'll try to build bison out-of-the-box in that VM.
> Provided that the configuration & build process works under DOS 6.22,
> would you agree that the arch dir is not needed?

If it works I will have no objections. In that case an arch/djgpp dir will 
become superfluos.

Regards,
Guerrero, Juan M.