Re: 9.0 ?

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 http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD