On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On Monday 21 December 2009 02:23:39 Robert Haas wrote:
>>> A more important point is whether we really need to make this
>>> dependent on Perl 5.6 or later.
>
>> I dont see a platform without perl 5.6 where a new enough flex/bison is
>> available...
>
> That argument only holds water if you are willing to follow the same
> rules as we use for flex/bison, ie, they are not needed to build from
> a source tarball. Otherwise this *is* moving the goalposts on required
> tool support.
I believe that we have long had agreement on making the relevant files
distprep targets, so this will not be an issue. Anyway, the whole
thing is a silly argument anyway: we can certainly make this
compatible back even as far as Perl 5.0 if need be for very little
extra work.
What is worth a little bit of effort to establish is exactly what
version of Perl we're already depending on, so that we can document
that for the benefit of future tool writers. There's no reason why
this particular thing needs to be compatible further back than what is
already required otherwise.
...Robert
