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

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

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re:RPM dependencies (Was: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?))
Date: 2000-10-27 20:03:19
Message-ID: 39F9DF87.1C836D13@wgcr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
[BCC to Hackers -- cc: to PORTS, as, as Bruce correctly pointed out,
that's where this discussion belongs.]

Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > My gut feel is that RedHat may be better off shipping 7.0.x if the
> > library version numbers are a contributory problem.
 
> We could provide compat-packages with just neeeded libraries.

Yes, we could do that.  And those libs could possibly just be the
symlinks (or even just a Provides: header).
 
> We upgrade everything from 3.0.3 (we no longer support upgrades from
> 2.0 as we couldn't find a specific way to identify such a system and
> we didn't want accidentaly upgrade other distributions), so there is
> pain anyway.

I tried going from 4.1 (the earliest one I have installation CD's for)
to pre-7.0 once.  I don't recommend it.
 
> > Of course, that doesn't affect what I do as far as building 7.1 RPM's
> > for distribution from the PostgreSQL site (or by anyone who so desires
> > to distribute them).  I have no choice for my own self but to stay on
> > the curve.  I need TOAST and OUTER JOINS too much.
 
> Others very likely have the same need. I'll be looking into issues
> with these later.

Good. Let me know what you decide, if you don't mind.
 
> Anyway, I've had a look at psql in objdump:
 
> Dynamic Section:
>   NEEDED      libpq.so.2.1
>   NEEDED      libreadline.so.4.1
> [...]
 
> It links against nice, round versions of most libraries but wants
> specific versions of readline ad libpq.

And unfortunately PHP and other PostgreSQL clients also link against the
specific libpq version.  This has caused pain for those installing the
PHP stuff from RPM which was linked against a RedHat 6.2 box with
PostgreSQL 6.5.3 installed -- onto a RedHat 6.2 box with PostgreSQL
7.0.2 installed.  There is a failed dependency on libpq.so.2.0 -- even
though libpq.so.2.1 is there.

A symlink works around the problem, if the symlink is part of the RPM so
that it gets in the rpm dep database.  Of course, this only causes
problems with RedHat 6.2 and earlier, as RH 7's PHP stuff was built
against 7.0.2 to start with.  But, 7.1 with libpq.so.2.2 will cause
similar dep failures for PHP packages built against 7.0.2.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

Responses

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 20:04:39
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 19:51:25
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 20:04:39
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2000-10-27 19:55:21
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 20:04:39
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 19:51:25
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

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