Re: [Fwd: PostgreSQL RPMS...]

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PostgreSQL RPMS...]
Date: 2000-06-12 21:24:43
Message-ID: 200006122124.RAA04716@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > No idea. I just brand the files.
> ----
> > > I assume that you may still be doing the RPMS's for PostgreSQL.
> > > Just a note on the latest 7.0.2-1 RPMS release. The binaries from
> > > the RPMS are reporting that they are version 7.0.1, instead of
>
> If I run psql -V on 7.0.2, it reports that it is 7.0.1.
>
> Oh well.
>

Strange. If you look in include/version.h.in, it constructs
PG_VERSION_STR and I see 7.0.2 in there. My guess is that somehow the
tarball being grabbed has 7.0.1 in include/version.h.in, even though CVS
has 7.0.2.

Can you check on that?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-06-12 21:34:07 Re: Caching number of blocks in relation to avoi lseek.
Previous Message Haroldo Stenger 2000-06-12 21:12:43 Revisited: Does error within transaction imply restarting it?