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

Re: 9.0 ?

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Chander Ganesan <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com>, Devrim G~ND~Z <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, damien(at)dalibo(dot)info
Subject: Re: 9.0 ?
Date: 2009-01-07 06:00:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Seriously, though, the real issue we'll run into with PostgreSQL 10 is that 
> there's several Linux distributors (including, I think, Red Hat) which are 
> using a package serial scheme which doesn't include a leading "0".  So the 
> upcoming version is 80400, not 080400, and will cause them to do some 
> rejiggering when we do eventually release version 10.

There isn't any such serial version scheme that I'm aware of for the RHEL 
packages.  Here's a RHEL4 install showing the expected x.y.z number:

$ rpm -qi postgresql-libs
Name        : postgresql-libs              Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version     : 7.4.19                            Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Release     : 1.el4_6.1

As for where that comes from, this is what the latest Fedora .spec file 
building recent packages looks like:

Summary: PostgreSQL client programs and libraries
Name: postgresql
Version: 8.3.5
Release: 2%{?dist}

No serial scheme to be found there.  emacs has had version numbers >10 for 
a long time; here's one of those packages that has a version number like 
the PG packages will have eventually, works fine:

$ rpm -qi xemacs
Name        : xemacs                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version     : 21.4.15                           Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Release     : 11.EL4

I just took a quick glance at the Debian, Gentoo, and SuSE packaging as 
well, and they all seemed OK too.  Looks to me like if this problem 
existed at some point, it's already been resolved in all the major Linux 
distributions.  I'd be surprised if there were really "several" left where 
this is still a concern.

* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to

  • Re: 9.0 ? at 2009-01-06 18:59:46 from Josh Berkus

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2009-01-08 09:10:05
Subject: Re: Users group on a map
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2009-01-06 19:45:31
Subject: Re: 9.0 ?

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