From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ecpg and bison again |
Date: | 2002-06-19 14:14:32 |
Message-ID: | 4163.1024496072@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:22:08PM +0100, Lee Kindness wrote:
>> Perhaps there is some usefulness in adding 'preproc-inprogress.y' to
>> the repository and those interested in ecpg changes and who have the
>> relevant bison installed can manually copy it to 'preproc.y'?
> Is this something we can agree on? I'm willing to even add
> preproc-inprogress.c, but I'm not sure if this generates the same
> problems as with preproc.c.
Seems to me that it would.
I agree it's not pleasant to be blocked like this. Is there any way we
can persuade the bison guys to be a little more urgent about releasing a
fix? (If 1.49 is just an internal beta version, maybe a back-patch to
their last released version?)
Another possibility is to temporarily disable ecpg from being built by
default (eg, just remove it from src/interfaces/Makefile) and then go
ahead and commit your changes. Then, anyone wanting to test it would
have to (a) have a suitable bison installed and (b) manually go into
interfaces/ecpg and say "make all install". I can't say that I like
this idea, but it seems better than putting derived files into CVS.
regards, tom lane
PS: BTW, are any of the bison people at Red Hat? Maybe I could apply
a little internal pressure...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tony Griffiths(RA) | 2002-06-19 14:18:57 | Re: Missing library files?? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-19 14:06:04 | Re: Missing library files?? |