On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:22:38PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:30:38PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >(got to that point - attaching a diff which built with 2.6.0) > > I'm not entirely convinced that this change captures what you're trying to > achieve with 2.6.0, as the second expression to sed makes LEX_SUBVERSION in > this case equal to 2, which is the major version, and the following
fixed... > comparisons don't make sense in that case. My inclination would be to change > the test for 2006000 to -ge and be done with it: > > elif test $cf_lex_version -ge 2006000 > > You should probably then also drop this: > > -e 's/\.[0-9.]*//'` agreed - it seems to be superfluous with the long line just before > > as I'm not sure that it adds anything in the 2.5.x case. This is all mostly > cosmetic, as the changes to filters.h actually fixed the problem for 2.6.0. actually part of configure.in was needed (the line where I added "maybe"). The rest of the scripting was of course to try to generalize for the next version. > To add to the hilarity, Debian unstable just upgraded to flex 2.6.1 which > elicits: > > checking version of flex... 2.6.1 > configure: WARNING: Sorry - your version of flex is too unstable: 2.6.1 > > which would be the same message you would see for 2.6.0 if you make the change > suggested above. I tidied this up (attached) -- Thomas E. Dickey <dic...@invisible-island.net> http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
vile-9.8r4.patch.gz
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
