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
>>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:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2006-01-02 19:22:52|
|Subject: Re: psql & readline & win32|
|Previous:||From: Jim Buttafuoco||Date: 2006-01-02 19:14:42|
|Subject: Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?|