Tom Lane writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on which configure didn't detect the absence of libz.so
Really? Details please. It's hard to see how it could have messed
up on that.
I didn't look well enough -- I apologize. The library is there, but
ld.so believes it is not:
Tom Lane writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
SunOS typhoon 5.7 Generic_106541-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1
on which configure didn't detect the absence of libz.so
Really? Details please. It's hard to see how it could have messed
up on that.
Tom,
I didn't look well enough -- I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on which configure didn't detect the absence of libz.so
Really? Details please. It's hard to see how it could have messed
up on that.
I didn't look well enough -- I apologize. The library is there, but
ld.so believes it is not:
typhoon postmaster
ld.so.1:
I am sorry I wasn't listening -- I may have helped by at least
answering the direct questions and by testing. I have, in fact,
positively tested both my and Oleg's code in the today's snapshot on a
number of linux and FreeBSD systems. I failed on this one:
SunOS typhoon 5.7 Generic_106541-10
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sorry I wasn't listening -- I may have helped by at least
answering the direct questions and by testing. I have, in fact,
positively tested both my and Oleg's code in the today's snapshot on a
number of linux and FreeBSD systems. I failed on this one:
SunOS
IMHO, giving out real test results, even negative, instead of leaving
things untested would be a honest thing to do.
afaict there are several concerns or decisions, and we've made a few
already:
Re: gist.c patches...
1) Oleg and Hannu are committed to testing the repaired GiST as soon as
it
An optional test is like no test at all. No one runs optional tests. If
the test is supposed to work then it should be mainstream. If the test
might not work then you better go back and figure out what you're testing.
If the test might not *compile* (which is probably the more severe
