From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Winflex docs and distro |
Date: | 2021-05-17 12:55:19 |
Message-ID: | e4ddae9c-2fa3-ce71-494d-ca0520b3fba8@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/17/21 5:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2021, at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Since PostgreSQL 9.3, in commit a266f7dd93b, we've added the text:
>>>
>>> + The obsolete "winflex" binaries distributed on the PostgreSQL FTP site
>> Which was slightly updated in 0a9ae44288d.
> It's been touched a couple of times, but not in any material fashion.
>
>
>>> At this point. I suggest we simply stop distributing winflex on our
>>> download site, and just remove this note from the documentation.
>> Sounds reasonable, are there (easily retrieved) logs/tracking for when it was
>> accessed by anyone last?
> Not really. We don't keep logs going very far back. I can see it being
> accessed a handful of time in the past 14 days. But AFAICT from the
> limited information we have it's all bots.
>
+1 for removing the binary and the reference.
These days my setup for MSVC doesn't use msys: it's basically this PS1
fragment (which assumes chocolatey is installed):
$utils = 'StrawberryPerl', 'git', 'winflexbison', 'diffutils', 'vim'
choco install -y --no-progress --limit-output @utils
$cbin = "c:\ProgramData\chocolatey\bin"
Rename-Item -Path $cbin\win_bison.exe -NewName bison.exe
Rename-Item -Path $cbin\win_flex.exe -NewName flex.exe
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-05-17 12:58:41 | Re: Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2021-05-17 12:47:20 | Re: postgres_fdw - should we tighten up batch_size, fetch_size options against non-numeric values? |