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

Re: symbol mismatches on minor version upgrades

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: symbol mismatches on minor version upgrades
Date: 2011-09-02 19:13:54
Message-ID: 23051.1314990834@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tis, 2011-08-30 at 15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not possible at least in the Red Hat world, because all the
>> subpackages have exact-version-and-release dependencies tying them
>> together.  That's distro policy not just my whim, and I'd expect other
>> server-grade distros to have similar policies. 

> Well, the Debian packages don't do this.  Obviously, they could, but no
> one has ever clarified this.

> Exactly which distribution policy is this?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

The discussion there doesn't go into all that much detail, but there
have been enough bad experiences at Red Hat with partially-updated
packages that people have very negative views of doing otherwise.

> I would rather think that
> this is something that upstream needs to determine.

Since the upstream is shipping a single tarball, it's unlikely that
they'll think about it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-09-02 19:15:51
Subject: Re: pg_dump --exclude-table-data
Previous:From: Tomas VondraDate: 2011-09-02 19:09:52
Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

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