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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

We know that these are OK as minimums:
Squeeze: flex = 2.5.35 ; bison = 2.4.1

The older distros have:
RHEL5: flex = 2.5.4a ; bison = 2.3
SLES10: flex = 2.5.3 ; bison = 2.1

Which seems to suggest that our real minimums are something >2.5.4a and
>2.3, I suppose it depends on which Jan had trouble with.

The origin commit doesn't tell us much:

commit 05b99c93cb61809a369763db29803816df49407d
Author: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Fri Mar 5 14:35:09 2010 +0000

    Commit output from flex for benefit of prehistoric people
    
    Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxx>

The archives around the time aren't telling me much either.

Ian.



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