| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 14:54:27 |
| Message-ID: | 29187.972658467@sss.pgh.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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Razvan Radu | 2000-10-27 15:00:37 | rule on insert |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2000-10-27 13:16:20 | Re: select and null |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2000-10-27 14:55:37 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2000-10-27 14:51:42 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-27 15:41:39 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-27 04:55:17 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |