Bison 1.50 was released

Hi,

I just learned that bison 1.50 was released on Oct. 5th and it indeed
compiles ecpg just nicely on my machine. Could we please install this on
our main machine and merge the ecpg.big branch back into main?

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael(at)Fam-Meskes(dot)De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

Can we please hold off until bison 1.50 becomes a defacto? It will be a
matter of weeks before distros offer this as an upgrade package let
alone months before distros offer this as a standard. Seems like these
changes are ideal for a release after next (7.5/7.6) as enough time will
of gone by for it to be much more commonly found. By not jumping on the
wagon now, it will also allow more time for bugs in the wild to be
caught and fixed before we force it onto the masses.

Greg

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:05, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just learned that bison 1.50 was released on Oct. 5th and it indeed
> compiles ecpg just nicely on my machine. Could we please install this on
> our main machine and merge the ecpg.big branch back into main?
>
> Michael
> --
> Michael Meskes
> Michael(at)Fam-Meskes(dot)De
> Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
> Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> writes:
> Can we please hold off until bison 1.50 becomes a defacto?

We don't have a whole lot of choice, unless you prefer releasing a
broken or crippled ecpg with 7.3.

In practice this only affects people who pull sources from CVS, anyway.
If you use a tarball then you'll get prebuilt bison output.

regards, tom lane

Greg Copeland wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Can we please hold off until bison 1.50 becomes a defacto? It will be a
> matter of weeks before distros offer this as an upgrade package let
> alone months before distros offer this as a standard. Seems like these
> changes are ideal for a release after next (7.5/7.6) as enough time will
> of gone by for it to be much more commonly found. By not jumping on the
> wagon now, it will also allow more time for bugs in the wild to be
> caught and fixed before we force it onto the masses.

No, we can't wait. A fully function ecpg has exceeded the bison tables
sizes, so we need a new version now. Rememeber we ship pre-bison'ed
files in the tarball, so only developers will need a new bison.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Oh, that's right. I had forgotten that it wasn't for general PostgreSQL
use. Since it's a ecpg deal only, I guess I remove my objection.

Greg

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 09:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> writes:
> > Can we please hold off until bison 1.50 becomes a defacto?
>
> We don't have a whole lot of choice, unless you prefer releasing a
> broken or crippled ecpg with 7.3.
>
> In practice this only affects people who pull sources from CVS, anyway.
> If you use a tarball then you'll get prebuilt bison output.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html