On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:50 PM Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > And the question now is: Where to move that dependency? Either the > consumers must explicitly depend on libbison-dev (A) or bison is > restructured in a way that still provides the library for the right > architecture when issuing a dependency on bison (B).
Personally I would go for A. The reason being the following paragraph from Bison documentation [1]: "The Yacc library contains default implementations of the yyerror and main functions. These default implementations are normally not useful, but POSIX requires them." I don't see too many applications being happy with the Yacc library main() function, so I suspect that most packages should continue to build without explicit dependency on libbison-dev. And letting the mostly useless Yacc library take the "bison" package name just feels wrong to me. I will see about setting up a ratt run to see how many packages would actually FTBFS with option A and report back. Though I will definitely take you up on your offer to take care of MBF, once we have the list of affected packages. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Yacc-Library.html#Yacc-Library
