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

Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?
Date: 2006-01-02 19:00:21
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 
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 -

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group