Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497756 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-28 08:58:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Andrew, I especially like how you compose all of your thoughts into a single > coherent comment. ;-) :P > I agree we should build the latest LPG (and adding the native bits will be > trivial), but porting DTP/CDT isn't something I'd be confident doing or have > the time to commit to. I can take a look at porting DTP. CDT is less of a big deal since we're not using this functionality now. I think it's their c99 parser that uses LPG. > So I propose the following packages: > > lpg: the main package containing the tool to generate grammar parsers (this > is the native C++ bit) > > lpg-java: subpackage containing the java runtime library for java parsers > generated by the tool in the main package (lpgruntime.jar) > > lpg-java-compat: subpackage containing the old java runtime library > (lpgjavaruntime.jar) > > lpg-manual: programmer/user guides for both lpg and lpg-java This sounds good to me. It doesn't look like this is done yet, but soon you'll be able to have lpg-java be a noarch sub-package and the C++ bits be arch-specific: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoarchSubpackages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review