Output confused for the function postgis_full_version()

[lrssvt]

Running the query select postgis_full_version(), in alpha7 subversion, I get the following output:

"POSTGIS="2.0.0alpha7SVN" GEOS="3.3.2-CAPI-1.7.2" PROJ="Rel. 4.7.1, 23 September 2009" GDAL="GDAL 1.9.0, released 2011/12/29" LIBXML="2.7.8" USE_STATS (core procs from "2.0.0alpha7SVN" need upgrade) (topology procs from "2.0.0alpha7SVN" need upgrade) (raster procs from "2.0.0alpha7SVN" need upgrade)"

same behavior is if I apply the three script SQL (postgis_[],rtpostgis_[] and topology_[] - [upgrade_20_minor.sql])

[strk]

r9348 should have fixed this. A simple "make install" after source update should give you more readable messages.

Btw, I find them too long, if you can think of a better way suggestions are welcome :)

[lrssvt]

unfortunately the problem persists, even with r9349

[strk]

How did you obtain your sources ? Does the postgis_svn_revision.h contain a sensible revision number ? Does it get updated on "make postgis_svn_revision.h" ? Did you make install ? Did you load postgis_upgrade_20_minor.sql ?

[lrssvt]

Replying to strk:

How did you obtain your sources ?

Download tar.gz from postgis.refractions.net (postgis-2.0.0alpha7SVN.tar.gz)

Does the postgis_svn_revision.h contain a sensible revision number ?

#define POSTGIS_SVN_REVISION 0

Does it get updated on "make postgis_svn_revision.h" ?

Can't fetch local revision (neither .svn nor .git found) Not updating existing rev file at 0

Did you make install ?

Yes, i did ./configure, make and make install

Did you load postgis_upgrade_20_minor.sql ?

Yes!

[strk]

Replying to lrssvt:

Replying to strk:

How did you obtain your sources ?

Download tar.gz from postgis.refractions.net (postgis-2.0.0alpha7SVN.tar.gz)

Does the postgis_svn_revision.h contain a sensible revision number ?

#define POSTGIS_SVN_REVISION 0

It's then a packaging error. You may need to wait next build of it. I dunno the build frequency. I expect next build to work correctly (have a non-zero POSTGIS_SVN_REVISION)

[lrssvt]

I changed the method of installation, much smoother via svn checkout!

with r9352, it solved the issue! (as well #1631 has been fixed :-))

[lrssvt]

I forgot ... you're doing a great job!