> 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)).
> If so, I claim RPM is broken.
> The whole point of major/minor version numbering for .so's is that
> a minor version bump is supposed to be binary-upward-compatible.
> If the RPM stuff has arbitrarily decided that it won't honor that
> definition, why do we bother with multiple numbers at all?
> > So, PostgreSQL 7.1 is slated to be libpq.so.2.2, then?
> To answer your question, there are no pending changes in libpq that
> would mandate a major version bump (ie, nothing binary-incompatible,
> AFAIK). We could ship it with the exact same version number, but then
> how are people to tell whether they have a 7.0 or 7.1 libpq?
Yes, we need to have new numbers so binaries from different releases use
the proper .so files.
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: Lamar Owen||Date: 2000-10-27 16:34:12|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-10-27 14:54:27|
|Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2000-10-27 16:08:24|
|Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-10-27 15:19:52|
|Subject: Re: Select syntax (broken in current CVS tree) |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Igor Roboul||Date: 2000-10-27 15:49:28|
|Previous:||From: Ian Lance Taylor||Date: 2000-10-27 15:13:37|
|Subject: Re: What is the listserver at hub.org doing?|