Re: [Xen-devel] bison/flex version requirements

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] bison/flex version requirements"):
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:44 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Updates to the .l/.y files under tools/libxl/ over the last month lead
> > to the unfortunate situation that libxl failed to build on my SLE10
> > systems. Looking at README at the root of the tree doesn't reveal
> > anything but the fact that the two utilities are required (i.e. in
> > particular there's no mini,mum version specified), and the common
> > ground for utility versions so far was what RHEL5 and SLE10
> > provide.
> 
> IIRC we check in the generated files for these tools precisely because
> one or more of these older distros didn't have a new enough version of
> one or the other (flex?). Hopefully Ian J remembers more about what the
> required feature is.

IIRC RHEL5 is too old.  It had a totally ancient version of at least
one of flex or bison which couldn't even produce reentrant
scanners/parsers.

> So the intention is that you shouldn't need to regenerate these files on
> those systems, but of course if you are patching the .l/.y at RPM build
> time that isn't going to work. The logical extension of the above is
> that your RPM patches should also patch the generated files, presumably
> with a version built on a newer distro with a newer flex. Not terribly
> satisfactory for you I think.

I concur.

But in general you should be able to avoid regenerating these files if
you don't patch the inputs.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel