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

Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>, 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 15:41:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > Unfortunately RPM deems a dependency upon to not be
> > fulfilled by (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, 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                        |
  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 OwenDate: 2000-10-27 16:34:12
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 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 RosenmanDate: 2000-10-27 16:08:24
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-10-27 15:19:52
Subject: Re: Select syntax (broken in current CVS tree)

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Igor RoboulDate: 2000-10-27 15:49:28
Subject: timestamp?
Previous:From: Ian Lance TaylorDate: 2000-10-27 15:13:37
Subject: Re: What is the listserver at doing?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group