Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:16:29PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Looks like threre is a 1.75 out (based on a FreeBSD PR I just saw fly
> > > by).
> >
> > I can confirm that:
>
> I just tried Marc's installation of 1.75 and compared the result with my
> 1.50 compiled v
going to be dealing with this this weekend ... Bruce already asked me as
well, just been busy during the week, so had to defer to the weekend ...
if its not in place by tomorrow around, so, 8pm GMT,please feel free to
email-nag me :)
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Could anyone ple
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 22:03, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > >> Looks like threre is a 1.75 out (based on a FreeBSD PR I just saw fly
> > >> by).
> >
> > > I can confirm that:
> > > htt
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> Looks like threre is a 1.75 out (based on a FreeBSD PR I just saw fly
> >> by).
>
> > I can confirm that:
> > http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bison/
> > Attached is the Changelog since 1.50.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Michael Meskes writes:
>
> > Could anyone please tell me if we found a solution? It seems I missed
> > any discussion or whatsoever. The only things I know is that
> > postgresql.org still has bison 1.35 installed and 7.3 release is
> > nearing.
>
> I suggest that you me
Michael Meskes writes:
> Could anyone please tell me if we found a solution? It seems I missed
> any discussion or whatsoever. The only things I know is that
> postgresql.org still has bison 1.35 installed and 7.3 release is
> nearing.
I suggest that you merge your branch as soon as you are ready
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> those now, you can, because I assume your bison 1.50 output will get
> >> into CVS. I have bison 1.50 here too.
>
> > The changes are there already, I just have to fold the ecpg.big branch
> > into HEAD
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> those now, you can, because I assume your bison 1.50 output will get
>> into CVS. I have bison 1.50 here too.
> The changes are there already, I just have to fold the ecpg.big branch
> into HEAD.
Probably you should refrain from doing that until Marc
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:48:33AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, we are going to upgrade to bison 1.50 on our main server as soon as
> Marc gets it installed. If you want to make your changes and commit
Okay.
> those now, you can, because I assume your bison 1.50 output will get
> into CVS.
Yes, we are going to upgrade to bison 1.50 on our main server as soon as
Marc gets it installed. If you want to make your changes and commit
those now, you can, because I assume your bison 1.50 output will get
into CVS. I have bison 1.50 here too.
---
Could anyone please tell me if we found a solution? It seems I missed
any discussion or whatsoever. The only things I know is that
postgresql.org still has bison 1.35 installed and 7.3 release is
nearing.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 06:47:46PM -0700, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > I get
> > cvs [server aborted]: cannot write /cvsroot/CVSROOT/val-tags: Permission denied
> > This seems to be a server message.
>
> I see the same thing when trying to update a tree to this branch using
> local cvs on mcvsup.po
> I get
> cvs [server aborted]: cannot write /cvsroot/CVSROOT/val-tags: Permission denied
> This seems to be a server message.
I see the same thing when trying to update a tree to this branch using
local cvs on mcvsup.postgresql.org. The file is owned by scrappy and has
no group write permissions
A couple of notes:
...
> Then, update *only* the ecpg source directory to the branch:
> cd pgsql/src/interfaces
> cvs update -r ecpg_big_bison ecpg
cvs will respect any changes you have made to the sources in your
directory and the changes will be preserved in the move to the branch.
Here is wh
> > I'm happy setting up the branch if that would be helpful. Let me know if
> > this is the way you want to proceed, and if so what you would like the
> That would be nice. I do not really knwo cvs myself.
Done. And here is how you would use it...
> > branch to be called.
> No idea. "new-bison"
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 06:23:24PM -0700, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> Michael, is this acceptable to you? If you use remote cvs, then you
Yes, it is.
> I'm happy setting up the branch if that would be helpful. Let me know if
> this is the way you want to proceed, and if so what you would like the
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:14:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree it's not pleasant to be blocked like this. Is there any way we
> can persuade the bison guys to be a little more urgent about releasing a
> fix? (If 1.49 is just an internal beta version, maybe a back-patch to
> their last relea
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:41:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about we add the preproc.c file generated by bison 1.49 to cvs?
> > Could that create problems elsewhere?
>
> Yes. It's a bad idea to put derived files in CVS. For one thing,
> CVS wi
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about we add the preproc.c file generated by bison 1.49 to cvs?
> Could that create problems elsewhere?
Yes. It's a bad idea to put derived files in CVS. For one thing,
CVS will not guarantee that their timestamps are right compared to
the maste
How about we add the preproc.c file generated by bison 1.49 to cvs?
Could that create problems elsewhere?
The version that is part of the source tree now is generated on the
server, isn't it?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use Post
20 matches
Mail list logo
