http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23275
Summary: Will not compile using with flex version 2.5.4a installed via yum Product: Wine Version: 1.2-rc4 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: -unknown AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: rhoward1231@yahoo.com
Created an attachment (id=29011) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=29011) config.log from failed install
CentOS 5.4 x86_64 System Dual - Dual Core XEON 3.0 G Hz
running configure I get an error that I need 2.5.33 o later and flex says it is 2.5.4
I removed the flex version check from configure and it ran ./conigure ok but then make failed.
removed 2.5.4 and compiled the rpm for flex 2.5.33 and everything worked.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23275
Rodney Howard rhoward1231@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Rodney Howard rhoward1231@yahoo.com 2010-06-20 05:24:45 --- Ok so I need help. I was really thinking that flex 2.5.4a would be a later release than 2.5.33. Maybe it should be labeled 2.5.04a for those of us with no brain.
Below is a list of flex releases, ordered by date, with the most recent release listed first. Releases are available as gzipped or bzipp2ed source tarballs.
February 26, 2008
* flex version 2.5.35 in tar.gz format * flex version 2.5.35 in tar.bz2 format
December 12, 2007
* flex version 2.5.34 in tar.gz format * flex version 2.5.34 in tar.bz2 format
February 21, 2006
* flex version 2.5.33 in tar.gz format * flex version 2.5.33 in tar.bz2 format
March 3, 2003 flex, version 2.5.31. Later releases have made this release obsolete. Only use if you have a particular need to avoid later changes. In particular, bug and security fixes of general interest happened after this release. June 27, 1997
* flex version 2.5.4a in tar.gz format
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23275
Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com 2010-06-20 05:29:13 --- It's a common rule, for example there's no doubts that kernel version 2.6.4 was released earlier than 2.6.34, e.g. every version field should be compared as a number.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23275
--- Comment #3 from Rodney Howard rhoward1231@yahoo.com 2010-06-20 06:09:05 --- (In reply to comment #2)
It's a common rule, for example there's no doubts that kernel version 2.6.4 was released earlier than 2.6.34, e.g. every version field should be compared as a number.
I forgot to add the a in my post but it was reported to be version 2.5.4a. I realize that and it was the "4a" that threw me off, because I was reading it in the order.
33,34,35,36,37,38,39,3a,3b,3c,3d,3e,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,4a,4b, etc. When I went back and looked at the download page 4a was off the bottom of the screen and when I found it and the release dates I realized what an idiot I was.
One note that hopefully people will see is that 2.5.4a is what is installed under both Fedora and CentOS as the current version from YUM. Updateing the package does not find the rpms you have to manually get them from:
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org