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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

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.

So in practice these files are most often regenerated on the tool's
maintainers/committers systems, which are typically running Debian
Squeeze. I have:
$ bison --version
bison (GNU Bison) 2.4.1
$ flex --version
flex 2.5.35

How does that compare with what you have?

With any luck Ian J will remember what the original issue was and we can
update the docs and configure to suit...

Ian.


> 
> While, with some hassle, I was able to work around that by building
> newer m4, bison, and flex versions, the situation currently is clearly
> in need of improvement.




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