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

Re: Re: [GENERAL] 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: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Date: 2000-10-27 20:04:39
Message-ID: 39F9DFD7.ABE486FE@wgcr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > Unfortunately RPM deems a dependency upon libpq.so.2.0 to not be
> > fulfilled by libpq.so.2.1 (how _can_ it know?  A client linked to 2.0
> > might fail if 2.1 were to be loaded under it (hypothetically)).

> There usually are no such problems, and I'm not aware of any specific
> to postgresql either.

There have been reports to the pgsql-bugs list and to the PHP list about
this very issue.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-10-27 22:06:22
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 20:03:19
Subject: Re:RPM dependencies (Was: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?))

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-10-27 20:07:00
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 20:03:19
Subject: Re:RPM dependencies (Was: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?))

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Neil DavisDate: 2000-10-27 20:22:06
Subject: SELECT and server side functions
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-10-27 20:03:19
Subject: Re:RPM dependencies (Was: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?))

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