On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:02:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tim Bunce writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:31:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I still think that this is optimizing the wrong thing. We care about
> >> the clarity of the message the user sees, not about how short or clean
> >> th
Tim Bunce writes:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:31:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still think that this is optimizing the wrong thing. We care about
>> the clarity of the message the user sees, not about how short or clean
>> the Perl code is.
> There's no need to try to parse the perl -v outpu
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:31:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker writes:
> > How about something like the below?
>
> I still think that this is optimizing the wrong thing. We care about
> the clarity of the message the user sees, not about how short or clean
> the Perl code is. I'm inc
Alex Hunsaker writes:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 00:50, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 14:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to stay with the same basic
>>> implementation and just hack up the regexp some more to cope with 5.11's
>>> more verbose -v output.
>>
>> And here is a
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 00:50, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 14:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to stay with the same basic
>> implementation and just hack up the regexp some more to cope with 5.11's
>> more verbose -v output.
>
> And here is a stab at that:
Grr... stupid wo
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 14:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to stay with the same basic
> implementation and just hack up the regexp some more to cope with 5.11's
> more verbose -v output.
And here is a stab at that:
$ echo "This is perl, version 4.0" | sed -n 's/This is perl.*v[a-z
]*\([0-9]\.
Howdy,
First, thanks to everyone for the quick responses to my bug report.
> The output format of "perl -v" has been reasonably consistent for well
> over a decade, eg (examples captured from various machines around my
> house)
>
> This is perl, version 4.0
> This is perl, v5.8.7 bu
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 14:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker writes:
>> How about something like the below?
>
> I still think that this is optimizing the wrong thing. We care about
> the clarity of the message the user sees, not about how short or clean
> the Perl code is. I'm inclined to sta
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 14:17, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 13:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alex Hunsaker writes:
>>> ! perl_version_error=`$PERL -e 'use 5.00801;' 2>&1`
...
> How about something like the below?
Find attached one that modifies config/perl.m4 as well :)
perl_conf
Alex Hunsaker writes:
> How about something like the below?
I still think that this is optimizing the wrong thing. We care about
the clarity of the message the user sees, not about how short or clean
the Perl code is. I'm inclined to stay with the same basic
implementation and just hack up the
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 02:17:57PM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 13:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker writes:
> >> ! perl_version_error=`$PERL -e 'use 5.00801;' 2>&1`
> >
> > This is not a path towards an acceptable solution, as it effectively
> > assumes what we are
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 13:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker writes:
>> ! perl_version_error=`$PERL -e 'use 5.00801;' 2>&1`
>
> This is not a path towards an acceptable solution, as it effectively
> assumes what we are setting out to prove, namely that we have found
> a reasonably modern vers
Jonathan Leto writes:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is perl 5, version 11, subversion 4 (v5.11.4-114-ga4cc961*) built for
>>> x86_64-linux
>>
>> Ugh. Can't they manage to keep that message reasonably consistent?
> The form of the version string is the closest rel
Howdy,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:57, Jonathan wrote:
>>> This is perl 5, version 11, subversion 4 (v5.11.4-114-ga4cc961*) built for
>>> x86_64-linux
>
> Ugh. Can't they manage to keep that message reasonably consiste
Alex Hunsaker writes:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:57, Jonathan wrote:
>> This is perl 5, version 11, subversion 4 (v5.11.4-114-ga4cc961*) built for
>> x86_64-linux
Ugh. Can't they manage to keep that message reasonably consistent?
> ! perl_version_error=`$PERL -e 'use 5.00801;' 2>&1`
This
Using
perl -e 'use 5.008010'
would be a more reliable way for configure to test the perl version.
Tim.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 05:57:56PM +, Jonathan Duke Leto wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 5339
> Logged by: Jonathan "Duke" Le
Alex Hunsaker escribió:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:57, Jonathan wrote:
> > checking for perl... /home/leto/bin/perl
> > configure: using perl
> > configure: WARNING:
> > *** The installed version of Perl, /home/leto/bin/perl, is too old to use
> > with PostgreSQL.
> > *** Perl version 5.8 or la
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:44, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:57, Jonathan wrote:
>> configure: using perl
>> configure: WARNING:
>> *** The installed version of Perl, /home/leto/bin/perl, is too old to use
>> with PostgreSQL.
>> *** Perl version 5.8 or later is required, but t
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:57, Jonathan wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 5339
> Logged by: Jonathan "Duke" Leto
> Email address: jonat...@leto.net
> PostgreSQL version: master 0f50d482
> Operating system: CentOS 5.4 (Linux kernel 2.6.18)
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5339
Logged by: Jonathan "Duke" Leto
Email address: jonat...@leto.net
PostgreSQL version: master 0f50d482
Operating system: CentOS 5.4 (Linux kernel 2.6.18)
Description:Version of Perl detected incorrectly
Detai
20 matches
Mail list logo
