Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re:RPM dependencies (Was: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?))

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re:RPM dependencies (Was: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?))
Date: 2000-10-27 23:08:05
Message-ID: 200010272308.TAA20376@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
> And, really, RPM shouldn't allow it for automatic requires.  Suppose I
> have an ancient client RPM that I want to install.  Assuming for one
> second that nothing else has changed on the system except the PostgreSQL
> version, if the client was built against PostgreSQL 6.2.1 with
> libpq.so.1, and I force the install of it even though libpq.so.2 is
> installed, freakish things can happen.  Been there and done that -- a
> client linked against Postgres95 1.0.1 did really strange things when
> libpq.so.2 was link loaded under it.
> 
> Worse things happen if you have a package that requires tcl 7.4 and you
> have tcl 8.3.2 installed.
> 
> Not everyone is as generous as we are with upwards compatibility.

And we aren't super-generous either.  I am not sure how far back we go
in allowing old libpq apps to talk to new servers.  We go one version at
least.  So you could allow for the current version number, plus one
minor number greater, and know that would work.

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

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-10-28 14:04:07
Subject: Re: shmget failed
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-10-27 22:36:30
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2000-10-27 23:17:00
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-10-27 22:58:50
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: PhilDate: 2000-10-28 01:32:52
Subject: dsn to postgres database.
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-10-27 22:36:30
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group