[MacPorts] #41600: bison: update to 3.0.2

[MacPorts]

#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