On 15/10/18 00:40, Mihir Mehta wrote: > Hi Pádraig, > > > On Sunday 14 October 2018 10:37 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> Why was bison++ suggested? >> Is there an overlap in commands used in these packages? >> I.E. could the disambiguation be done in the packaging? > The packages "bison" and "bison++" are suggested, in Debian and > derivatives, as alternatives to provide "bison" on the command-line. The > trouble I'm trying to address with this patch is that these two "bison" > executables (or scripts - I haven't checked) do not do the same thing, > and in particular the version from "bison++" screws up compilation of > the coreutils. > > I'm not sure how the disambiguation could be done in the packaging.
It seems that both bison and bison++ provide /usr/bin/bison on your distro. This violates some debian standards so should be fixed up in the distro. I suggest the debian bison++ package should not provide /usr/bin/bison, especially since it's not fully compatible. I also note that bison++ is not available at all in Fedora. cheers, Pádraig. p.s. From experience I feel it's important to fix things in the right place, as short term workarounds tend to be long lived and compound as the line between workaround and core functionality blurs
