From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: symbol mismatches on minor version upgrades |
Date: | 2011-09-02 19:13:54 |
Message-ID: | 23051.1314990834@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tis, 2011-08-30 at 15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not possible at least in the Red Hat world, because all the
>> subpackages have exact-version-and-release dependencies tying them
>> together. That's distro policy not just my whim, and I'd expect other
>> server-grade distros to have similar policies.
> Well, the Debian packages don't do this. Obviously, they could, but no
> one has ever clarified this.
> Exactly which distribution policy is this?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
The discussion there doesn't go into all that much detail, but there
have been enough bad experiences at Red Hat with partially-updated
packages that people have very negative views of doing otherwise.
> I would rather think that
> this is something that upstream needs to determine.
Since the upstream is shipping a single tarball, it's unlikely that
they'll think about it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-09-02 19:15:51 | Re: pg_dump --exclude-table-data |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-09-02 19:09:52 | Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress |