[postgis-devel] Any chance we can get a 1.3.6 RC1 out this week

[Kevin Neufeld]

:) correction.  These results are for an FC3 box, not centos, but I do 
get the same error on my centos5.3 box as well.

Kevin Neufeld wrote:
> It passes regression tests on my centos5.3 box, but there are errors 
> in the log files...
>
> Creating spatial db postgis_reg
> TMPDIR is /tmp/pgis_reg_25038
>
> PostgreSQL 8.3.7 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 
> 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)
> Postgis 1.3.6RC1 - 2009-04-26 07:03:29
>   GEOS: 3.1.0-CAPI-1.5.0
>   PROJ: Rel. 4.4.9, 29 Oct 2004
> ....
> Run tests: 40
> Failed: 0
>
> [kneufeld at turtle regress]$ grep ERROR /tmp/pgis_reg_25038/*
> /tmp/pgis_reg_25038/dumper.err:Initializing... ERROR: Cannot determine 
> spatial reference (empty table or unknown spatial ref).
> /tmp/pgis_reg_25038/regress_log:ERROR:  table "loadedshp" does not exist
>
> -- Kevin
>
> Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> I've wrapped an 'rc1' and placed it here:
>>
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/download/postgis-1.3.6rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> Please test it a bit and then we'll announce to the wider audience.
>>
>> P
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>>> I've been testing under Windows 2003 and seems okay - comparing some 
>>> stress
>>> tests between 1.3.5 and 1.3.6 (though was using GEOS 3.1.0 -- still 
>>> need to
>>> test with 3.0.3.
>>>
>>> My tests on 8.4 beta 1 under windows I think I'm seeing some 
>>> discrepancies
>>> between ST_Within behavior, but could be my diffing is out of wack  and
>>> haven't determined if its an issue with 1.3.6 or 1.4.0.  I had 
>>> installed
>>> both under the same 8.4 beta 1 install in separate more or less 
>>> identical
>>> databases.  Still yet to test on Linux.
>>>
>>> It would really help if we have an up to date tar ball for both at 
>>> the very
>>> least.
>>>
>>> The Union behavior between the 1.3.6 and 1.4.0 is very different, but I
>>> think that is expected and under an OpenJump microscope the results 
>>> at least
>>> have the same number of points and look visually the same.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regina
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>>
>>>     
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel