Thread: rc tarball built with older flex version?
I noticed that the rc1 tarball includes scanner files that are built with an older flex version that generates warnings with our default compilation flags. Since I have been running with -Werror by default for a great while now, this caught my attention while testing the tarball. Are we tracking this or are we just using whatever was installed on the host that created the snapshot?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I noticed that the rc1 tarball includes scanner files that are built with an
> older flex version that generates warnings with our default compilation flags.
> Since I have been running with -Werror by default for a great while now, this
> caught my attention while testing the tarball. Are we tracking this or are we
> just using whatever was installed on the host that created the snapshot?
It's whatever is installed on svr1, but we don't change that often,
and I'm particularly not inclined to change it post-RC. We don't
recommend that people use -Werror to build, so I think we should just
write this off as "not a bug".
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> I noticed that the rc1 tarball includes scanner files that are built with an >> older flex version that generates warnings with our default compilation flags. >> Since I have been running with -Werror by default for a great while now, this >> caught my attention while testing the tarball. Are we tracking this or are we >> just using whatever was installed on the host that created the snapshot? > > It's whatever is installed on svr1, but we don't change that often, > and I'm particularly not inclined to change it post-RC. We don't > recommend that people use -Werror to build, so I think we should just > write this off as "not a bug". I'm a bit confused here though ... I haven't changed flex on that VPS recently ... in fact, its dated Sep 15, 2007 ... so the builds have been using the same flex for a long while now ... Peter, is this a recently change you've noticed, or something that has been like that for while now? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
On Monday 22 June 2009 00:17:06 Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > >> I noticed that the rc1 tarball includes scanner files that are built > >> with an older flex version that generates warnings with our default > >> compilation flags. Since I have been running with -Werror by default for > >> a great while now, this caught my attention while testing the tarball. > >> Are we tracking this or are we just using whatever was installed on the > >> host that created the snapshot? > > > > It's whatever is installed on svr1, but we don't change that often, > > and I'm particularly not inclined to change it post-RC. We don't > > recommend that people use -Werror to build, so I think we should just > > write this off as "not a bug". > > I'm a bit confused here though ... I haven't changed flex on that VPS > recently ... in fact, its dated Sep 15, 2007 ... so the builds have been > using the same flex for a long while now ... > > Peter, is this a recently change you've noticed, or something that has > been like that for while now? Well, I rarely test the actual release source tarball, so it might have been like that forever.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Well, I rarely test the actual release source tarball, so it might have > been like that forever. 'k ... I swore I haven't changed anything over there in awhile, so was most confused as to where this sudden error came from ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664