Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:

> Hubert Feyrer wrote
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > > One remaining problem with this package which concerns flex.
> > > The version used in NetBSD doesn't work correctly in producing a
> > > valid kdevelop/kdevelop/classparser/tokenizer.c file. However,
> > > flex-2.5.4a from the packages collection works just fine. This was
> > > mentioned in one of my previous emails, but never received a
> > > conclusive reply, nor have I understood why we haven't upgraded our
> > > flex utility to fix this aparent bug.
> > > 
> > > To work around this, one could generate tokenizer.c using NetBSD's flex and
> > > flex-2.5.4 and provide a diff as a patch file. This is somewhat
> > > sub-optimal as I would rather like to see NetBSD's flex utility to be fixed.
> > 
> > How about finding someone to update our flex? :-)
> 
> That would be nice... who is the right person to talk about this
> problem. I've avoided to raise a PR on this as I am not familiar with
> the circumstances why we are still using flex-2.5.4 and not
> flex-2.5.4a, there surely must be a reason for it.

The _only_ difference between 2.5.4 and 2.5.4a is the addition of the
words "with or without modification" added to some copyright notices.
However, the NetBSD version has been modified, and it would appear that
somehow we have broken it in the process.  I've just done a quick diff
between 2.5.4a and what's in our tree and can't see anything obviously
wrong.  What exactly is the problem that you're seeing that doesn't
occur with a stock flex 2.5.4a?

Simon.