irrtoolset 5.0.0 release candidate

Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom T-Com - TE141-P1 rv at NIC.DTAG.DE
Sun Jan 31 22:24:30 UTC 2010


  > On 29/01/2010 22:31, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
  > > Building requires bison (plain traditional yacc doesn't understand
  > > %name-prefix or %output, but wants eg yacc -d -prpsl -o rpsl.y.cc rpsl.y,
  > > then outputs rpsl.y.h which needs to be renamed to rpsl.y.hh in rpsl;
  > > same with command.y in rtconfig. I doubt it's really worth it working
  > > around a dependency on bison though.)
  > 
  > yah, i had a 10 second look at traditional yacc on solaris, but decided
  > against making it compatible.  Truth is, bison is pretty ubiquitous these
  > days; and it's also a lot faster than yacc.
we are traditionally running Solaris - well, as traditional as being stuck
with Solaris 9. We are using flex and bison without problems - as far
as I understand.  Unfortunately some other problems did prevent us from
successfully building the most recent ISC 4.8.*.

  > > It needs a define of LEX to "flex -l" on NetBSD 5 and prior.
  > > I discovered a bug in lex on NetBSD-current (which I'm currently hunting)
  > > but if one fixes the fallout of that bug, irrtoolset compiles and works
  > > fine.
  > > 
  > > Further dependencies:
  > > requires automake and libtool-base
  > 
  > It's only the SVN source that needs automake;  the released tarball doesn't
  > need it, although it does require libtool.
  > 
  > > doesn't require gmake any longer, which is nice(tm)
  > 
  > yes, although the Makefiles from automate are truly grotesque.  Can't argue
  > that they work well, but wow, they're ugly.
  > 
  > I'm not feeling very guilty about putting in dependencies on tools like
  > bison, flex and libtool.  Most end-users are going to be installing
  > irrtoolset from a package / port system and not compiling it themselves.
  > Faidon has a .deb package; I have an updated freebsd port and also a new
  > macports Portfile ready.  The netbsd port can be fixed up pretty easily.
  > That just leaves Solaris, which is very much a minority platform anyway.
  > Haven't done anything about RH and RH derived systems which need rpms.
  > Anyone interested?
With new and very experienced help for our software environment, we are
checking whether 5.0.0 rc can be built in our Solaris 9 environment
without running into serious problems. We'll certainly report results
in the next very few days. If we can build 5.0.0 rc with limited effort
we'll also later come back with a plan for merging in the extensions
that we have done over the past 3 years.

  > Nick

Cheers,
  Ruediger



More information about the irrtoolset mailing list