Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix libxl build issues

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix libxl build issues"):
> The flex/bison generated headers pointlessly depended on the
> corresponding source files. Use multiple-target pattern rules instead.

Your Makefile changes look sensible.  I'll test them.

> It would also have been nice if the minimal flex/bison versions needed
> to successfully build libxl were documented: neither flex 2.5.31 nor
> bison 2.1 (as found e.g. on SLE10) is sufficient.

I have no idea why SLE10 is using a version of flex which is
SEVEN YEARS OLD.

We haven't used features of flex and bison gratuitously.  The features
we have used are those which are necessary to produce lexers and
parsers which are 1. reentrant and 2. do not pollute the namespace of
the resulting library.  I think that it's quite reasonable to say that
if you want to modify the parser/lexer you need tools which are less
than five years old, say.

That if you don't it doesn't build properly even with the existing
files is a bug.

I do know that the versions of bison and flex in Debian stable are
good enough: that's bison 2.3 (June 2006) and flex 2.5.35 (August
2008).  It is very likely that substantially earlier versions will
work.  If someone wants to do a systematic test they are very welcome
to document the results but for now how about "not ancient" ?

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel