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: | 200010271541.LAA03682@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Igor Roboul | 2000-10-27 15:49:28 | timestamp? |
Previous Message | Ian Lance Taylor | 2000-10-27 15:13:37 | Re: What is the listserver at hub.org doing? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2000-10-27 16:08:24 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 15:19:52 | Re: Select syntax (broken in current CVS tree) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-10-27 16:34:12 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 14:54:27 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |