From: Bob R. <bob...@co...> - 2007-04-06 00:54:01
|
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:50:09AM +1000, John Pye wrote: > Keith MARSHALL wrote: > > But back on topic: why do you direct the OP to GnuWin32, when WE > > already provide prebuilt binaries for MSYS? > > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mingw/bison-2.3-MSYS-1.0.11-snapshot.tar.bz2 > > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mingw/flex-2.5.33-MSYS-1.0.11-snapshot.tar.bz2 > > > > Ease of use, merely. The GnuWin32 version works very well and is easily > installable AND uninstallable. As soon as all those tarballs are > incorporated into a proper installation system I will be switching to > them very happily. Untarring stuff into my MinGW root makes me nervous, > if it can't be reversed. Are you kidding? Why not just untar them wherever you want? No one is forcing you to install them into the root, are they? > > Also note this comment by Bob Rossi: > > > >> Because gnuwin32 has older releases. Bison-2.3 is out, I only see > >> bison-2.1 on the gnuwin32 web site. > >> > > > > ...and observe that our bison *is* v2.3 already. (Yes, it's in the > > `Snapshot' package set, but we would really like people to try those; > > if no one reports problems they can't be fixed). > > > > Since the source doesn't appear in our CVS repository, I assume that > > Earnie built them from the canonical sources, either unmodified, as > > distributed from gnu.org, or as modified and distributed for Cygwin; > > perhaps he could confirm this. > > > > GnuWin32 always hosts its sources in a very clear way alongside the > binary packages. I think that the MinGW website could benefit a lot from > perhaps copying some of the method of presentation of the GnuWin32 site. There is some truth to that. Are you willing to voluteer to improve it though? If not ... why comment? Bob Rossi |