Tom Lane wrote:

>"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>  
>
>>configure doesn't actually report the bison version, but it does complain if
>>the version is less than 1.875, and I don't see that on rook.
>>    
>>
>
>Sigh, I haven't woken up entirely today :-( ... of course, this is a
>flex macro we are talking about, not bison.
>
>Our configure script does complain about flex 2.5.3, and I don't see
>that warning in rook's output, but perhaps some even older flex version
>is installed there?  Hard to believe ... even 2.5.4 is pretty ancient.
>  
>
Not that hard to believe. 2.5.4 is what the major distributions are 
shipping.
Even FC4 comes with 2.5.4a. The only reason I can see for this is that Flex
is now considered a NON-GNU project.

The currently supported Flex is up to 2.5.31.

Joshua D. Drake


>			regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>  
>


-- 
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/

In response to

• Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines? at 2006-01-02 18:33:58 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines? at 2006-01-02 19:12:03 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-01-02 19:06:38
	Subject: Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?
Previous:	From: Martijn van Oosterhout	Date: 2006-01-02 18:58:31
	Subject: Re: EINTR error in SunOS