Pending package updates, any gotchas?

Tushar Teredesai linux_from_scratch at
Thu Jul 31 07:43:28 PDT 2003

Matthew Burgess wrote:

>On 30 Jul 2003 10:39:33 -0600
>Gerard Beekmans <gerard at> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 16:02, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>>>I think bison-1.875a should be added to the book or
>>>someone could create 
>>>a patch for bison-1.875 which fixes the problem or
>>>book should 
>>>downgrade to bison-1.75.
>>>That would allow me remove the warning from the
>>>openoffice page.
>>So, bison-1.875a or not. Any reasons why it
shouldn't be done?
>It's alpha :)  If we're going with alpha stuff then
why not the most
>recent alpha (1.875b), or does it break other stuff?
I know, that's my only argument against
bison-1.875{a,b}. Coz it may 
start an argument about including other alpha.gnu

The other option is to use a "sanitized" (where only
the diffs of the .c 
files is taken into account) is used. I ran a diff
y'day and it is 
possible, if someone doesn't get to it till the
weekend, I can make one. 
There are also patches for bison at 
but don't know 
whether it fixes OO compilation.

Another less appealing option is to downgrade to
bison-1.75 till the 
next official bison is released.

Tushar Teredesai
  mailto:tushar at

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list