-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:32:30 -0800 "Garrett Cooper" <yanefbsd_at_gmail.com> mentioned: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Stanislav Sedov <stas_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:01:28 +0100 > > Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org> mentioned: > > > >> hi > >> > >> I noticed there is an update to lex/flex. The version in our tree > >> is ancient and there seems to be some updates (http://flex.sourceforge.net/) > >> > >> Can someone comment on the state of lex in our tree? It's not considered > >> a contributed software (it resides in usr.bin) but it was taken from elsewhere. > >> > >> what is our position? is it preferable for me to work on updating it or > >> just fixing the one bug I ran into? > >> > >> thnx! > >> > >> roman > > > > Are there any benefits in updating? Does it worth the hassle? We have this > > version of flex in ports for those who needs extended features. > > > > If there're no critical echancements/fixes in the updated flex version I'd > > prefer to stay with what we have and just fix the bugs encountered locally. > > But our version of flex is almost 6 years old 0-0? > (for anyone oblivious of its need -- including me a few minutes > ago) we apparently need it for the following sourcefiles: > We don't do software updates just for updates only. If it works why touch it? You can't garantee the new version won't break anything. If people want to use new flex why not install it from ports? - -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAklsbq0ACgkQK/VZk+smlYGMtgCeNy9GwP50rrhX16pSuBmYQedT MsMAnRKN3hnsjHIh+4nx+XIdTUyTafZd =6lph -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- !DSPAM:496c6bd6967001359969560!Received on Tue Jan 13 2009 - 09:24:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:40 UTC