#41600: bison: update to 3.0.2 ------------------------------+---------------------- Reporter: akim.demaille@… | Owner: larryv@… Type: update | Status: assigned Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: bison | ------------------------------+---------------------- Comment (by akim.demaille@…): Replying to [comment:26 larryv@…]:
The [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bison.git/tree/PACKAGING?id=v3.0.4 PACKAGING] file suggests distributing Bison as two separate packages, but that file hasn’t changed much during its [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bison.git/log/PACKAGING decade of existence], and my cursory examination of [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/bison/files/ Arch’s] and [https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/amd64/bison/filelist Debian’s] packaging suggests that other distributions tend to disregard it.
Does upstream (i.e., you) care about this? It would be easy enough to split the port, but I don’t want to do so if PACKAGING is no longer relevant.
The double packaging issue here is really special: bison generates parsers that can generate error messages that are translatable (and whose translation is provided by the suggested second package). So it may perfectly happen that a package that uses a parser generated by bison will produce translated error messages except parse-error error messages. Unless you install Bison just to get the translation of the its error message. So it is "benign" in the sense that the only damage is that parser error messages will be in English. I personally don't care much if there is a single package, but I would understand if someone were to have a different opinion. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/41600#comment:30> MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X