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

Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 19:21:55
Message-ID: 43B97D53.1020403@kaltenbrunner.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> No, the major reason for it is that flex 2.5.31 is seriously broken and
> non-compatible with its prior releases.  I wasn't aware that they'd gone
> so far as to remove a documented macro (one that was documented in 2.5.4
> as the *preferred* way to do things, mind you) but we already knew of
> several other issues with it.  See the archives.
> 
> I'll try to snarf a copy and see if there's a way to do it that's
> compatible with both releases, but it's the flex authors' own fault
> that 2.5.31 has had such poor uptake.

hmm it does not seem to work with the 2.5.4 version debian supplies as
"flex-old" too - maybe the following debian bug report(filed against
woody!) is related to this:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=194904


Stefan

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2006-01-02 19:22:52
Subject: Re: psql & readline & win32
Previous:From: Jim ButtafuocoDate: 2006-01-02 19:14:42
Subject: Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?

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