Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... I can't find an up-to-date snapshot
> I tried postgresql.rmplc.co.uk and got one (apparently) dated 7 Oct, however > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION didn't seem to be there (it certainly doesn't > work anyway - syntax error at OR). I then looked in the primary copy on > mail.postgresql.org and found the copy there was dated 30 Sept from which I > assumed that the 07/10/2001 date on rm's copy was actually a US date - that > site has been seriously out of date before. I just downloaded ftp://ftp.us.postgresql.org/dev/postgresql-snapshot.tar.gz which has a date of yesterday in the FTP archives, but actually contains a snapshot from around 15 September as near as I can tell. Looks like something is hosed in the snapshot preparation process; Marc, could you take a look at it? >> and I don't know the >> magic that has to be worked on the PostgreSQL CVS version of the >> configure script in order to make it run without barfing. > I always assumed that something is done when the tarballs are built as the > work just fine on the same machine. No, the tarballs should be the same as what you get from a CVS pull of the same date (other than not having a lot of /CVS subdirectories). In fact, they're made basically by tar'ing up a CVS checkout. Please try diffing configure from a tarball against one from CVS to see if you can figure out what's getting munged during your CVS pull. > The only odd thing I can think of is > that my copy of the source is maintained on my PC using WinCVS and was > zipped/ftp'd onto a test box. LF vs CR/LF newlines leap to mind as a likely source of trouble... though I'm not sure why that would manifest in just this way... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
