X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.193])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8246730ED4E; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:05:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193])
	by localhost (svr1.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 44895-07; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:05:02 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from cpc-gw2.cpc.net.au (unknown [210.9.248.93])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2E8B530D174; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:05:00 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from utiba.com
	by Utiba Mail Gateway (2.2.2) with ESMTP id h5G44w811213;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:04:58 +1000
Received: from pc37.cpc.net.au (pc37.cpc.net.au [192.168.0.37])
	by Utiba Mail Thingy (0.0.2) with ESMTP id h5G44vx17197;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:04:57 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
Organization: Utiba
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: ECPG CVS version problems
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:04:55 +1000
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
References: <200303280200.h2S20N218363@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<200306161110.58418.philip@utiba.com>
	<25659.1055731774@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <25659.1055731774@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200306161404.55749.philip@utiba.com>
X-Archive-Number: 200306/36
X-Sequence-Number: 4247

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:49 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com> writes:
> > Bison [blah blah]

> Uh, this is done as of a few days ago.  Or is the check not working?
>
> 			regards, tom lane

Tom, this post relates to problems I had with the CVS build around April 22=
...=20
Michael's reply was somewhat delayed. So you can probably ignore it.

I just did a test build on a machine with bison 1.35, and there were no=20
complaints regarding its version - I assume that a way was found to make=20
older versions of bison work (which is definitely preferable)? Whatever was=
=20
done, it seems to have done the trick.

Regards, Philip.