Last call?

Here are the ones on the "currently supported" list (let me know if you
have something running on another platform. Any Ultrix people out there
still?):

Change:

_ BSDi

to

_ BSDI 3.x and 4.0

Also, the Windows NT item is of much interest. Can we report this as
working, and have a binary of 6.4 built at the time of the 6.4 release,
November 1? (I am CC'ing the NT person.)

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

Change:

_ BSDi

to

_ BSDI 3.x and 4.0

The underscores meant that I don't know if the platform has been
regression tested yet. Exes meant I did. I was assuming that you had
already done BSDI (isn't that you're development platform?) and was
hoping to get a report from you saying to put an "x" for that one.

So the only platforms I've marked as being confirmed are NT, Unixware,
SVR4, mklinux, and linux. But I know there are others which are already
working, I'm just not certain exactly which ones...

- Tom

Hi Tom and all

I did not know what the '_' and 'x' meant the first time, as I recall the
one for 'Linux ix86' had an '_', or unknown, I can do this for you, should
I grab the Bata2 or the latest snapshot?

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

Change:

_ BSDi

to

_ BSDI 3.x and 4.0

The underscores meant that I don't know if the platform has been
regression tested yet. Exes meant I did. I was assuming that you had
already done BSDI (isn't that you're development platform?) and was
hoping to get a report from you saying to put an "x" for that one.

So the only platforms I've marked as being confirmed are NT, Unixware,
SVR4, mklinux, and linux. But I know there are others which are already
working, I'm just not certain exactly which ones...

- Tom

Terry Mackintosh <terry@terrym.com> http://www.terrym.com
sysadmin/owner Please! No MIME encoded or HTML mail, unless needed.

Proudly powered by R H Linux 4.2, Apache 1.3, PHP 3, PostgreSQL 6.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Success Is A Choice ... book by Rick Patino, get it, read it!

"Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote:

So the only platforms I've marked as being confirmed are NT, Unixware,
SVR4, mklinux, and linux.

Tom, can you distinguish between linux with libc5 and with glibc (aka libc6)?

--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things
which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right
hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not
on things on the earth." Colossians 3:1,2

I did not know what the '_' and 'x' meant the first time, as I recall
the one for 'Linux ix86' had an '_', or unknown

Thanks Terry, but I've already got that one done (it's my development
platform). The Linux Alpha and Sparc need testing, which is probably
what you remember seeing...

- Tom

can you distinguish between linux with libc5 and with glibc?

Yes, if necessary. I'm running glibc at work (with the RH 6.3.2 rpms)
and libc5 at home (with v6.4beta). I don't expect there to be any
significant differences; are you aware of any?

Also, I'm planning on doing a clean install of v6.4beta on my glibc
machine, so can verify it then.

Or are you just saying that we should mention both explicitly so that
people can know that it would work on their machine for sure?

- Tom

My stuff is all in, as of yesterday. (BTW, I assume it's sufficient
to fix install.sgml, and that the text INSTALL file will be built from
that?)

Yes. And I'm going through install.sgml at this moment to freshen it up.
I'll commit changes in the next few minutes, and it would be great if
others (Tom and Bruce?) could take a look at it.

I'll try posting a new html version of things on the Postgres web site.

- Tom

Change:

_ BSDi

to

_ BSDI 3.x and 4.0

The underscores meant that I don't know if the platform has been
regression tested yet. Exes meant I did. I was assuming that you had
already done BSDI (isn't that you're development platform?) and was
hoping to get a report from you saying to put an "x" for that one.

So the only platforms I've marked as being confirmed are NT, Unixware,
SVR4, mklinux, and linux. But I know there are others which are already
working, I'm just not certain exactly which ones...

Oh, sorry. Put an X for BSDI.

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

Here are the ones on the "currently supported" list (let me know if you
have something running on another platform. Any Ultrix people out there
still?):

x NetBSD 1.3.2/i386

I'm running on NetBSD 1.3.2/i386 and as of yesterday the regressions
all passed. I'm trying to redo them every few days to make sure
nothing creeps in so this should be a supported platform.

Cheers,
Brook

I'll try posting a new html version of things on the Postgres web
site.

... which I've now done for the admin guide. This contains a chapter on
installation which is from the same source as the text-only version to
be put in INSTALL.

Could folks look it over and in particular make sure that it is an
acceptable substitute for what is now in INSTALL?

- Tom

My stuff is all in, as of yesterday. (BTW, I assume it's sufficient
to fix install.sgml, and that the text INSTALL file will be built from
that?)

Yes. And I'm going through install.sgml at this moment to freshen it up.
I'll commit changes in the next few minutes, and it would be great if
others (Tom and Bruce?) could take a look at it.

I'll try posting a new html version of things on the Postgres web site.

- Tom

As far as I know, the INSTALL and sgml INSTALL are in sync. I have made
changes both places, and I don't think others have made changes.

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

x NetBSD 1.3.2/i386
I'm running on NetBSD 1.3.2/i386 and as of yesterday the regressions
all passed. I'm trying to redo them every few days to make sure
nothing creeps in so this should be a supported platform.

This is exactly what makes it a supported platform :)

- Tom

'Linux ix86' had an '_', or unknown

Thanks Terry, but I've already got that one done

But Oliver was asking about glibc2 vs libc5. Do you happen to have a
glibc machine (RH 5.x?) available? If so we could use a direct report of
success since I'm still running RH4.2/libc5 for development...

- Tom

I compiled it on RH 5.1... no problems.

Taral

I'm sure Oliver runs a libc6 system. He is one of the debian core
developers.

-Egon

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

Hi Tom

Nope, RH4.2/libc5, same as you.
Still waiting for the dust to settle on the glibc thing:)

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

'Linux ix86' had an '_', or unknown

Thanks Terry, but I've already got that one done

But Oliver was asking about glibc2 vs libc5. Do you happen to have a
glibc machine (RH 5.x?) available? If so we could use a direct report of
success since I'm still running RH4.2/libc5 for development...

- Tom

Terry Mackintosh <terry@terrym.com> http://www.terrym.com
sysadmin/owner Please! No MIME encoded or HTML mail, unless needed.

Proudly powered by R H Linux 4.2, Apache 1.3, PHP 3, PostgreSQL 6.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Success Is A Choice ... book by Rick Patino, get it, read it!

I cannot believe, RH4.2 isn't a glibc2 system.

-Egon

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Terry Mackintosh wrote:

I just gave today's (Oct 25) snapshot a try on Sparc Linux.
Looks good except datetime. I'm getting failures due to this type
of thing:

regression=> SELECT ('today'::datetime );
?column?
----------------------------
Sun Oct 25 00:00:00 1998 EDT
(1 row)

regression=> SELECT ('tomorrow'::datetime - '1 day'::timespan);
?column?
----------------------------
Sun Oct 25 01:00:00 1998 EDT
(1 row)

I *think* this may because we're not too far into EST yet.
Sound good?

My machine is Kernel is 2.0.29. Libc 5.3.12.

Tom Szybist
szybist@boxhill.com

In message <3632A932.7FEB1733@alumni.caltech.edu>, "Thomas G. Lockhart" writes:

"Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote:

can you distinguish between linux with libc5 and with glibc?

Yes, if necessary. I'm running glibc at work (with the RH 6.3.2 rpms)
and libc5 at home (with v6.4beta). I don't expect there to be any
significant differences; are you aware of any?

No; there are minor textual differences in the math overflow messages
and, last time I tried, the geometry tests had differences of around
10 ^ -12.

...
Or are you just saying that we should mention both explicitly so that
people can know that it would work on their machine for sure?

Precisely.

The difference is such a major one that linux-libc5 and linux-glibc
should be regarded nearly as two different systems.
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things
which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right
hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not
on things on the earth." Colossians 3:1,2