Re: flex package POSIX violation
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:20:21 -0800 (PST)
- From: Steven Penny <svnpenn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: flex package POSIX violation
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:47:11, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
How POSIX compliant is Cygwin supposed to be? I don't think many of
the tools are 100% POSIX compliant but are good enough so does making
the symlink between flex and lex make it more compliant or less so
because the tool doesn't meet 100% compliance?
are these some questions to really want to have asked?
POSIX standard demands a "lex" utility - so providing a "lex -> flex" symlink
makes the Cygwin package more POSIX compliant - im sorry but i cant see how you
couldnt understand why that would be the case. and while yes 100% compliance is
certainly an asymptote, that doesnt mean we shouldnt even try - especially when
it is a simple fix, as in this case.
also, per my post  you quoted, and yaakov post , most major distros are
doing this already.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple