Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Timestamp glitch in 6.4 tarball: gram.y dependencies not committed

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Timestamp glitch in 6.4 tarball: gram.y dependencies not committed
Date: 1998-11-22 22:17:49
Message-ID: 12197.911773069@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I got a note from someone about problems installing Postgres 6.4
on HPUX, one of which was that HP's yacc wouldn't process gram.y
due to table overflow.  That's hardly news ... but a distribution
tarball shouldn't require gram.y to be processed; it should contain
usable output files, no?

Looking into it, I find that the 6.4 tarball contains files with the
following timestamps:

1998-10-29 23:54 postgresql-v6.4/src/backend/parser/gram.c
1998-10-14 11:56 postgresql-v6.4/src/backend/parser/gram.y
1998-09-30 01:48 postgresql-v6.4/src/backend/parser/parse.h

Since parser/Makefile has the dependency

gram.c parse.h: gram.y
        $(YACC) $(YFLAGS) $<

the fact that parse.h is back-dated means that installers of 6.4 will
have to process gram.y.

In short, parse.h needs to be 'touch'ed in the repository.

I did that for the REL6_4 branch, but I wanted to raise a flag here
for updaters of the grammar: make sure that parse.h gets committed
when gram.c does.  You may need to use "cvs commit -f" to force a
commit even though parse.h hasn't changed ... that looks to be the
cause of this particular glitch.

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1998-11-22 22:44:29
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What happened to FAQ_Linux, FAQ_Irix?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-11-22 21:50:26
Subject: What happened to FAQ_Linux, FAQ_Irix?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group