flex package POSIX violation
Steven Penny
svnpenn@gmail.com
Mon Jan 1 00:26:00 GMT 2018
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:43:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Which is why I wanted to see where this was going. Are these fixes
> just looking for low hanging fruit to be POSIX compliant, or are these
> needing larger amounts of resources to be 'compliant'? If the
> flex->lex link fails some sort of POSIX test, are people going to need
> Cygwin porters to fix those? Also is there an easy line for "this is
> compliant enough?"
Here is a simple demonstration of the problem:
$ cat xr.l
%option main
%%
ya printf("zu");
%%
$ make xr
lex -t xr.l > xr.c
/bin/sh: lex: command not found
make: *** [<builtin>: xr.c] Error 127
rm xr.c
now of course you can work around this by "make LEX=flex xr" or similar, but no
major Linux distro makes you do this, as they already include "lex" vis-a-vis
the symlink to flex.
[1] http://gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list