> And given that, they're going to get the latest by default,
> or 1.875 if they read the (currently being written) README.
The point was, that >= 2.2 won't be allowed when it comes out for win32,
even if it should work.
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Ok. So what you want is something that checks that it's
=1.875 but specifically not 2.1?
Might be a while before I can submit an updated patch for that,
may
need to rewrite the whole script in perl to do that :-( .bat
files are
> -Original Message-
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:01 PM
> To: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] vcbuild bison check
>
> > > Ok. So w
> > Ok. So what you want is something that checks that it's
> > >=1.875 but specifically not 2.1?
> >
> > Might be a while before I can submit an updated patch for that,
> may
> > need to rewrite the whole script in perl to do that :-( .bat
> files are
> > horribly limited in what they can do.
>
>
> Ok. So what you want is something that checks that it's
> >=1.875 but specifically not 2.1?
>
> Might be a while before I can submit an updated patch for
> that, may need to rewrite the whole script in perl to do that
> :-( .bat files are horribly limited in what they can do.
Since we are
I wrote:
> Let me finish investigating the 2.x series and get back to you on that.
2.1 indeed seems to be the only version that emits the busted semicolon.
I found that 2.2 and 2.3 both fail one of their "make check" tests on my
machine --- if that's widespread it might explain a slow uptake rate
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. So what you want is something that checks that it's >=1.875 but
> specifically not 2.1?
Let me finish investigating the 2.x series and get back to you on that.
> Might be a while before I can submit an updated patch for that, may need
> to rewr
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think Tom's point is that we should reject only 2.1. Isn't
>> that the only version that fails?
> Not entirely sure. I beleive there were older versions that don't work
> as well...
My recollection is that the version immediately prior to 1.875
> >> The point was, that >= 2.2 won't be allowed when it comes out
> for
> >> win32, even if it should work.
>
> > Right. So I'd update it once we see a working version other than
> 1.875.
>
> No, we should ship it that way to start with. Otherwise we're
> going to get caught with no released so
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The point was, that >= 2.2 won't be allowed when it comes out for
>> win32, even if it should work.
> Right. So I'd update it once we see a working version other than 1.875.
No, we should ship it that way to start with. Otherwise we're going to
ge
> > And given that, they're going to get the latest by default, or
> 1.875
> > if they read the (currently being written) README.
>
> The point was, that >= 2.2 won't be allowed when it comes out for
> win32, even if it should work.
Right. So I'd update it once we see a working version other than
> > > > 2.1 is the broken one.
> > >
> > > Exactly. So we should reject it.
> >
> > We do. The code as-is *only* accepts 1.875. Thus it rejects 2.1.
>
> I think Tom's point is that we should reject only 2.1. Isn't
> that the only version that fails?
Not entirely sure. I beleive there were ol
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >>> Attached patch adds a version check for bison when running the
> > vc++
> > >>> build.
> > >>
> > >> Shouldn't it be looking for 2.1 as well?
> >
> > > 2.1 is the broken one.
> >
> > Exactly. So we should reject it.
>
> We do. The code as-is *only* accepts 1.875.
> >>> Attached patch adds a version check for bison when running the
> vc++
> >>> build.
> >>
> >> Shouldn't it be looking for 2.1 as well?
>
> > 2.1 is the broken one.
>
> Exactly. So we should reject it.
We do. The code as-is *only* accepts 1.875. Thus it rejects 2.1.
//Magnus
-
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Attached patch adds a version check for bison when running the vc++
>>> build.
>>
>> Shouldn't it be looking for 2.1 as well?
> 2.1 is the broken one.
Exactly. So we should reject it.
> It seemd it was fixed in 2.2, but 2.2 isn't
> realeased f
> > Attached patch adds a version check for bison when running the vc++
> > build.
>
> Shouldn't it be looking for 2.1 as well?
2.1 is the broken one. It seemd it was fixed in 2.2, but 2.2 isn't
realeased for win32 from what I cna tell.
//Magnus
---(end of broadcast)---
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached patch adds a version check for bison when running the vc++
> build.
Shouldn't it be looking for 2.1 as well?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't fo
17 matches
Mail list logo
